A CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS'

PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Darrell D J Latham

Dissertation submitted as partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the Doctorate in Education, Faculty of Education

University of Tasmania

2004

DECLARATION

I certify that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the

award of another degree or diploma in any institute, college or university,

and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material

previously published or written by another person, except where due

reference is made in the text of the thesis.

Darrell D J Latham

ABSTRACT

Leadership is recognised as a significant characteristic influencing school effectiveness.

The recent devolution of decision-making responsibility from centralised authorities to

local school-based management has resulted in changes in leadership provision in

schools. Consequently, school restructuring has created new expectations of those who

are in leadership positions to rethink the leadership paradigm, to develop effective and

purposeful leadership, and to promote learning communities based on collaborative and

collegial models. As New Zealand has experienced fourteen years of SBM, useful

insights could be gained regarding the way that teachers and principals perceive school

leadership.

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers and principals, in one school

district in New Zealand, perceived school leadership (deputy principal, assistant

principal, senior teacher/management unit holder) in terms of leadership style and

leadership management strategies. As well, the study considered the characteristics of

leadership that teachers and principals considered as important and being given

emphasis in their school. An examination was also made of how teachers perceived their

engagement in school decision-making and whether their perceptions are influenced by

other factors. A case study method was selected involving a survey of teachers and a

survey of principals, semi-structured follow up interviews of teachers, semi-structured

interviews of senior teachers and a document analysis relating to school management

strategies. Results of the study show that the majority of teachers perceive their school

leadership to exhibit characteristics of transformational leadership, and that school

decision-making is characterised by collaborative and cooperative processes.

111

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

To my supervisor, Professor Bill Mulford, I extend my sincere thanks for his

encouragement, expertise and guidance throughout the time of the research study which,

sharpened and focused my thinking and has been greatly appreciated.

To Dr Diana Kendall, my deepest gratitude. Her knowledge, commitment, unfailing

support, encouragement and willingness to assist at all times are the hallmark of a true

teacher and mentor.

My thanks to Dr Lawrie Kendall for his specialist support in and expertise in the data

analysis for the study.

Finally to my wife, Lee and daughters, Claire, Julia and Kimberley, my sincere

appreciation for their encouragement and support.

iv

CONTENTS Page

Declaration

Abstract

Acknowledgements iv

Contents Pages

Chapter One — Background to the Study Introduction 1 School-Based Management 1 School-Based Management in New Zealand 5 The Changing Role of the Principal 7 School leadership 9 Need for the Study 11 Statement of the problem 12 Purpose of the Study 12 Research Questions 12 Assumptions Underpinning the Study 13 Methodology 13 Limitation of the Study 14 Protection of Human Subjects 14 Bias of the Researcher 14 Definition of Terms 15

Summary 16

Chapter Two - Literature Review

Introduction 17 School-Based Management 17

Empowerment of Stakeholders under SBM 21 SBM and School Improvement 26 School Decision-Making 30 School Leadership and School Decision-Making 37

School Leadership 45 Principal Leadership 53 Transformational Leadership 59 Summary 66

Key Points from the Research Literature 69

Chapter Three - Methodology Introduction 70 Seeking Permission to Conduct the study 71

Research Design 71 Definition of the Population 75

(A) Survey of Teachers and Survey of Principals.... 75 (B) Semi-Structured Follow-up Interviews 76 (C) Semi-Structured Interviews of Senior Teachers... 77

Data Gathering Instruments Selected for the Case Study 77 (A) Survey 77 (B) Interviews 78 (C) Document Analysis 80

Design of the Data Gathering Instruments 82 (A) Survey of Teachers 82 (B) Survey of Principals 86 (C) Semi-Structured Follow-up Interview 86 (D) Semi-Structured Interviews of Senior Teachers.... 86

Tria ling the Data Gathering Instrument 87 (A) Survey 87 (B) Interviews 88

Administration of Data Gathering Instruments 88 (A) Teachers Survey and Principals Survey 88 (B) Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews 89

Data Recording and Data Analysis 90 Validity 91 Reliability / Dependability 93 Triangulation / Cross Validation 93 Summary 94

Chapter Four — Results Introduction 95 Research Question One 95 Characteristics of Leadership in Schools 96

Table 1: Performance Expectations 97 Table 2: Intellectual Stimulation 97 Table 3: School Culture and Climate 98

Table 4: Individualised Support 98 Table 5: Vision and Goals 99

Table 6: Structure 99 Importance and Emphasis of Leadership Characteristics 100

Table 7: Vision and Goals (I/E) 101 Table 8: School Culture and Climate (I/E) 101 Table 9: Intellectual Stimulation (YE) 102 Table10: Performance Expectations (I/E) 102

vi

Discrepant Analysis 102 Table 11: Discrepant Analysis — Group Statistics t-test... 103 Table 12: Discrepant Analysis — t-test 104

Interviews of Teachers 104 Interviews of Senior Teachers 108

Document Analysis 111 Summary of Research Question One 113 Research Question Two 114

Table 13: Decision-Making Index (rank order) 116 Table 14: Decision-Making Index (frequency) 117

Interviews of Senior Teachers 117 Document Analysis 118 Summary of Research question Two 119 Research Question Three 119

Table 15: Gender Teachers and principals 120 Table 16: Qualifications Teachers and Principals 120 Table 17: Age of principals 120 Table 18: Type of School 121

Table 19: Position of Responsibility 121 Table 20: Years in Current School (Teachers) 122 Table 21: Number of Principals (Teachers) 122 Table 22: Years Taught (Teachers) 122 Table 23: Years as a Principal 123 Table 24: Years in Current School (Principal) 123 Table 25: Years Taught (Principal) 123 Table 26: Aspirations for Principalship 123 Table 27: Reasons for Aspiration (Teachers) 124 Table 28: Satisfaction with being a Principal 124 Table 29: Recommend Principalship to others 124

Summary of Research Question Three 125 Post Hoc Tests: Factor Analysis 126 Vision and Goals 127

Tables 30a / 30b: Vision and Goals 128 Intellectual Stimulation 128

Tables 31a /31b: Intellectual Stimulation 129 School Culture and Climate 129

Tables 32a / 32b: School Culture and Climate 130 Performance Expectations 130

Tables 33a / 33b: Performance Expectations 131 Individualised Support 131

Tables 34a /34b Individualised Support 132 Structure 132

Tables 35a /35b. Structure 132 Summary of Chapter Four 133

vii

Chapter Five — Discussion Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction 134 Importance and Emphasis of Characteristics of Leadership 134 Teacher Engagement in Decision-Making 138 Individual Characteristics of Teachers and Principals 141 Recommendations for Future Research 144

References 145

Appendices Appendix A 155

Letter to School Principals 156 Appendix B 157

Information sheet for Survey Participants: Teachers. 158 Information Sheet for Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews: Teachers 159 Statement of Informed Consent: Teachers 160 Information Sheet for Survey Participants: Principals 161

Appendix C 162 Information Sheet for Semi-structured Interviews: Senior Teachers 163 Statement of Informed Consent: Senior Teachers 164

Appendix D 165 Teacher Survey of school Leadership 166

Appendix E 170 Principal Survey of School leadership 171

Appendix F 174 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview Schedule: Teachers .. 175

Appendix G 177 Semi-structured Interview Schedule: Senior Teachers ... 178

Appendix H 179 Survey Data Table 27: Vision and Goals (I/E) 180 Table 28: School Culture and Climate (YE) 180 Table 29: Intellectual Stimulation (YE) 181 Table 30: Performance Expectations (YE) 182

Appendix I 182 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview Data: Teachers 183

Appendix J 192 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview Data: Senior Teachers 193

viii

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Introduction

The decentralisation of school decision-making is a global occurrence and one referred

to by a variety of names, all of which have a slightly different emphasis. Most often

decentralisation refers to the devolution of educational decision-making and the

redistribution of power to the local school and community level. School-based

management in New Zealand has required principals and teachers to play an important

role in determining the direction of education for their school communities and this has

involved a change from the school leadership being directive and control orientated

towards an approach considered to be empowering and facilitative. It is timely that these

New Zealand developments in decentralisation be explored.

This chapter will outline the context of this case study of teachers' and principals'

perceptions of school leadership in the decentralised New Zealand education system as

well as its significance, research questions, methodology and definition of terms.

School-Based Management

During the last decade, decentralisation of responsibility for the management of schools

to the local level has been an organisational reform, which has affected many education

systems around the world. Generally, centralised departments of education determine

through a central office the way that schools are managed, and schools had little input

1

into, or control over, these determinations. By moving responsibility for school

management to a local level, the objective was to improve school effectiveness

and efficiency through increased participation of the school community in the

management of the school (David, 1989; Brown, 1995).

Shifting decision—making to local schools has meant redistributing power among

various groups, including parents, teachers and the community, who had a stake in the

quality of education. Teachers, parents, students, and to some extent the school

community, were involved in determining how educational resources and management

structures were to be used in a particular school context (Van Meter, 1994;Wylie, 1994).

The re-allocation of power and authority to stake holders was thought to make schooling

more responsive to the particular needs of local communities as well as using the

knowledge and energy of people at the school and community level. Brown (1990:157)

contended that the decentralisation of decision-making provided a greater degree of

flexibility at the local level and allowed school personnel to "make decisions which may

not have been possible under more centralised management".

During the 1990s, the trend towards restructuring was becoming evident in a number of

countries. In the United States of America, decentralisation reforms occurred in many

states including Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, California and, in particular, the city

of Chicago (David, 1995:4).

2

Under the 1998 education reform act in England, decentralisation of school decision-

making to the local school site occurred, with financial responsibility being moved from

Local Education Authorities (LEA) to individual schools managed by the school

principal and school trustees, to whom the principal has accountability (Williams,

Harold, Robertson and Southworth, 1997:626). The principal, elected parent

representatives, some community members and staff representatives had responsibility

for administrative decision-making and determined how monies would be spent; and

parental representation became a legal requirement on school governing-bodies along

with LEA representatives.

Similar to other education systems, Australia and New Zealand moved toward a system

of decentralisation where decision-making was devolved to the communities under a

School-Based Management (SBM) model. Phillips (2000: 143) argued that overseas

influences, particularly from the UK, "played a strong role" in the models of SBM

established in Australia and New Zealand. According to Wylie (1997:1) the motivating

factors behind decentralisation in New Zealand focussed on the importance of

improving educational provision, parent and community involvement and financial

accountability.

While there were similar features in the way that decentralisation occurred in different

education systems, Cranston (2002) pointed out that timing seemed to affect the scope

of change. In New Zealand the change was implemented over time. Cranston (2002:2)

described this as a "sequential approach" which he contrasted with the nationwide

3

curriculum change in Australia in 1989 where that country "issued new curricula at the

same time for all subjects".

In Australia, responsibility for education is vested in the individual states and territories

and the degree of decentralisation varies from state / territory government to school

district and school site. However, Mulford, Kendall and Kendall, Bishop and Hogan

(2000:58) pointed out that during the decade of the 1980s decentralisation took place, to

a greater or lesser extent, in all Australian states and territories.

The New Zealand government introduced educational reform policy in 1988 that

changed the way schools were governed. NovIan (1998:7) described this policy as the

"reformation of education administration". Although regional education boards were in

existence, the ultimate decision-making responsibility for education rested with the

government. As school reform was national, all schools were addressing similar issues .

at around the same time; decentralisation was seen to be part of a wider political agenda

including social, cultural and economic reform.

Williams, Harold, Robertson and Southworth (1997:626) claimed that the move toward

decentralisation in New Zealand had more in common with England than Australia; both

England and New Zealand moved from a system whereby responsibility for education

rested with a centralised system through to one where decision-making had been

"delegated to local schools".

4

According to Beare (1991:20) the school-based management model has generally

become the preferred model for the functioning of schools in many countries. When

countries are viewed collectively, and while differences in the implementation of

decentralisation are evident, commonly associated themes become apparent: for

example, the movement of policy decision-making away from educators, political rather

than educational considerations driving the restructuring process and "the economic

imperative" providing a justification for the reforms.

School-Based Management in New Zealand

Traditionally, New Zealand had a system of education with a strongly centralised

administrative and decision-making structure. In the early 1980s, growing concern about

education from some sections of the community who felt that they were disadvantaged,

particularly women and Maoris, was the impetus for a restructuring of this centralised

education system. A government task force was set up to review the education system

and its report contained recommendations for establishing local school decision-making

and local school-management (Task Force to Review Educational Administration,

1988).

In April 1989, a report titled Tomorrow's Schools was published which detailed

government policy for the decentralisation of education administration. In October of

the same year, with the disestablishment of regional education boards, and the

establishment of boards of trustees for schools, the initial phase of the introduction of

local school-based management was completed.

5

Williams, Harold, Robertson and Southworth (1997:627) described change in the New

Zealand education system as "sweeping decentralisation". They considered the change

from a centralised system to a school-based management structure to be a more radical

change than that which occurred in England. Management of schools in England was

undertaken by LEAs so the devolution of responsibility to the school level, in

comparison with New Zealand, was less severe.

Snook (1989:7) pointed out that although New Zealand had school districts before SBM,

these districts operated as middle managers for the central system which retained control

of schools and decision-making about financial management and curriculum. Under

SBM, schools and Boards of Trustees (BOT) had control over finance and management

but responsibility for curriculum was retained by the New Zealand Department of

Education. New Zealand has retained a national curriculum with regular government,

audits every three years undertaken by the Education Review Office of New Zealand.

While educational leadership has long been considered a complex phenomenon; it has

also been recognised that it is the school leader who weaves the threads of what is

happening in a school together (Campbell-Evans 1993:110). However, how teachers and

principals perceive school leadership as a result of the increased decentralisation of

school decision-making has been the focus of only limited research (Kowalski, Reitzug,

McDaniel and Otto 1992:299).

6

The Changing Role of the Principal

In a centralised system, principal leadership within a school generally focussed on

hierarchical structures and isolating decision-making to those who were perceived to

have the power and responsibility. According to Oliva (1993:500) school administration

and educational leadership systems consisted of "top-down, somewhat heroic visions"

where the school leader is referred to "as the man in the principal's office". Teachers

were seen to be isolated from real decision-making within the school and collaborative

leadership styles were not dominant. The principal had the responsibility of the

supervision of staff and, as Olivia (1993:500) pointed out, that supervisory role was a

power role as "the very word supervision implies a superordinate-subordinate

relationship".

Reitzug (1997:325) contended that the bureaucratic perspective of principal leadership

was important with the prevailing attitude being that the school hierarchy was necessary

for organisational efficiency and school improvement depended on the top down

directives of the education system and the principal. The principal's role as hierarchical

head of the school was based on the assumption of the "principal's expertise" which in

part was associated with their position in the hierarchy. Sergiovanni and Starratt

(1993:25) argued that the principal's position was characterised by expertise and the

principal was perceived as having expertise, that is "hierarchy equals expertise; thus,

supervisors know more about everything than do teachers".

7

Alcorn (1993:8) claimed that with the introduction of decentralisation, principals who

had played a significant role in the management of teaching were now required to

develop new skills and become key players in connecting the school to the community

through the school's governing body. Collaborative leadership styles and shared

decision-making procedures were a result of the reforms shifting authority from

centralised offices to schools. Townsend (1994:24) suggested that the move from

management decisions being made by the principal towards team decision-making

comprised of school administrators, teachers, parents, community members, and often

student members, represented a shift from policy making and provided direction to

consultation and collaboration with all interested parties.

Decentralisation required schools to be perceived as communities with the purpose of

promoting and supporting the concept of learning together rather than how learning may

be controlled. Sergiovanni (1992:41) contended that a change for the school principal

from controlling to shared understandings and shared practices has been required, and

he described this change as a shift from a "transactional leadership culture" of "what

gets rewarded gets done" to a "transformational leadership culture" where "what is

rewarding gets done". Sergiovanni pointed out that an outcome of the decentralisation of

school decision-making for the school principal, has been role evolution, with a focus on

mediation rather than controlling and with the objective of establishing a learning

community.

8

With decentralisation the nature of decision-making in schools has changed because

principals have been able to make decisions at a school-based level according to school

needs. Williams, Harold, Robertson and Southworth (1997:630) argued that decision-

making at school-based level "has become more varied and complex". However, they

pointed out that the cost of a greater degree of "freedom to make decisions", has been

countered by a responsibility which places "further demands on principals".

The changing role of the New Zealand principal according to Robertson (1991:142) has

been significant but difficult to quantify in the sense that "nobody knows the things

beyond the call of duty that a principal does". Nevertheless, Robertson makes the point

that principals prefer the relative independence of decentralisation, notwithstanding the

complexities and demands of a decentralised system.

School Leadership

Educational leadership has attracted considerable interest and has been the subject of

much discussion and debate as to how it should be defined and interpreted. Leonard and

Leonard (1999:237) argued that "there have been many attempts to conceptualise

leadership and the role of leaders" but the reality has been that both "continue to defy

explication". They view that "changing organisational environments" have created "new

conceptions of leadership" and that with restructuring "new roles are being created" and

"new frames of reference introduced".

9

However educational leadership is perceived, its role is acknowledged as being of

critical importance in a successful school (Fullan, 1991; Sergiovanni, 1996; Southworth,

1999). Mulford, Silins and Leithwood (2004:4) contended that the leadership role in a

school influences the way a school is managed, which is demonstrated by a leader's

"pivotal role in effective schools". The role evolution of the school leader, has meant

that school leaders have been required to make sense of new expectations, of managing

new forms of partnerships and being involved in change processes that, from an

educational perspective, would be seen as characteristics of good schools and effective

leadership.

Wallace (2002:167) contended that the principal occupies an influential position in

school management but the principal in a transformational, shared leadership context, is

one of a group of leaders that is, "principals are key, but not exclusive leaders and

managers". The role of the principal has changed from a "formal leader" to the concept

of leadership as a "distributed phenomenon of joint working".

With SBM then, school leadership may have changed in style and complexity from a

single leader as the principal, exhibiting a transactional style of leadership, to shared

leadership and transformational democratic leadership style. The impact of this broader

understanding of school leadership within the school community is likely to affect all

aspects of school organisation.

10

Need for the Study

In 1989 education reforms were introduced, known as Tomorrows Schools, which

changed substantially the nature of school leadership in New Zealand. Fourteen years

on, limited research has been undertaken regarding the effectiveness of school-based

management and the role of leadership in such management, in New Zealand. Wylie

(1999) investigated the impact of these reforms for primary and intermediate schools

and key findings from her research relate to funding and staffing, curriculum and

professional development, boards of trustees and parental involvement and school

competition. There is therefore a need to investigate the way that teachers and principals

now perceive school leadership in the New Zealand context.

Many countries around the world, like New Zealand, have introduced organisational

reforms related to school-based management. School-based management reforms have

meant changes which have implications for teachers and principals, particularly in the

context of school leadership and how leadership is perceived.

Research concerning school leadership has focussed on the role of the principal and, to a

lesser extent, the way school professionals view the role of the principal. The

significance of this study is that the focus is upon the broader concept of school

leadership, which includes the principal but the principal is not necessarily the main

focus of leadership. Results from this study could provide valuable information

concerning a more encompassing concept of school leadership.

11

School-based management has represented a significant reform agenda for New Zealand

schools and a research study at this time that investigates teachers' and principals'

perceptions of school leadership should provide a greater understanding of the

leadership process for those interested in ongoing school improvement.

Statement of the Problem

How do teachers and principals in a well-established system of school-based

management perceive school leadership?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers and principals in one specific

region of New Zealand (teaching in primary, contributing and intermediate schools)

perceived school leadership, in terms of leadership style and leadership management strategies.

Research Questions

The three research questions that were selected for the study were as follows:

Research Question One: What characteristics of leadership do teachers and

principals consider as important and as being given emphasis in their school?

Research Question Two: How do teachers perceive their engagement in school

decision-making processes?

Research Question Three: Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school

leadership affected by other factors such as gender, qualifications, type of

school, experience, age, aspiration and satisfaction?

12

Assumptions Underpinning the Study

Four assumptions underpinned the study:

Assumption One: Leadership has identifiable characteristics.

Assumption Two: School-based management is primarily a participative

process.

Assumption Three: Teachers have the professional understanding to make judgments

about leadership functions in a school.

Assumption Four: Principals have the professional understanding to make judgments

about leadership functions in a school.

Methodology

A case study methodology involving a multi-method data gathering approach was

selected for the study. The Otago region of New Zealand is a clearly defined separate

system within the wider New Zealand education system. A case study method is useful

for research that is exploratory in nature and occurs in a natural setting; however, a case

study is a study of an identifiable separate entity, which Burns (1997:364) defined as a

"bounded system". The Otago region fits the definition of a "bounded system" and is

therefore appropriate for a case study approach.

Data gathering instruments selected for the study consisted of surveys, semi-structured

follow-up interviews, semi-structured interviews and document analysis. In the Otago

region, a survey of the population of 500 teachers and 40 principals was conducted. The

survey of teachers and principals was designed to find out how they perceived school

13

leadership and school decision-making. Semi-structured follow-up interviews of a

random sample of approximately 10% of teachers participating in the survey was then

conducted. The purpose of these interviews was to clarify and expand on the results of

the survey of teachers. Four schools within the case study region were randomly

selected for further data gathering involving document analysis and semi-structured

interviews of senior teachers. Data gathering from the four schools was intended to

verify results from the surveys and interviews with teachers.

The data analysis involved survey frequency counts, chi-square and factor analysis. The

semi-structured follow-up interviews and semi-structured interviews involved

identification, analysis and categorisation of data.

Limitation of the Study

This study was conducted in 40 schools in the Otago region of New Zealand and results

may not be generalisable to other school districts in New Zealand.

Protection of Human Subjects

A standard ethics clearance for the study of human subjects was obtained from the

Southern Tasmania Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee.

Bias of the Researcher

The researcher has a key role in the provision of professional development to schools

throughout the Otago region in which the teachers and principals are working.

14

The researcher acknowledges and accepts that there is a risk of bias with the researcher

conducting the interviews with teachers. However, the value of ensuring consistency in

the conduct of the interview, by having the researcher conduct the interview, was

considered alongside the potential for bias with the researcher conducting the interview.

As the semi-structured interview sought information from teachers related to the results

of the survey, consistency in interview preparation was critical in eliciting responses,

and the researcher decided to conduct the interview mindful of a risk of bias.

Definition of Terms

BOT Board of Trustees.

Contributing School A School for children from year one (5 years of age) to

year six (11 years of age) feeding in to intermediate

schools or Colleges.

Decentralisation The devolution of decision-making responsibility from

centralised authorities to the local school level.

D-MI Decision-making Index.

Intermediate School A school for children from year seven to year eight.

LEA Local Education Authority.

OL Organisational Learning.

Primary School A school for children from year one (5 years of age) to

year eight (12 years of age) in the New Zealand

education system.

SBM School based-management.

15

Senior Teacher A teacher who holds a position of responsibility within

the school.

Summary

Chapter one has outlined the background to the study, the need for the study, the

statement of the problem and the research questions. This chapter also described the

assumptions underpinning the study, the methodology, limitations, protection of human

subjects, bias of the researcher and definition of terms.

In the chapters that follow, this thesis is organised according to the following structure.

Chapter two describes the relevant research literature from which the study has

developed. Chapter three presents the research framework for the study. Chapter four

presents the data analysis of the different research phases of the study. Chapter five .

provides a discussion of the findings, conclusions and recommendations for further

research.

16

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Over the last fifteen years, New Zealand schools have undergone considerable change as

the devolution of responsibility towards school-based management (SBM) has meant

changes to the way that schools are organised and decisions are made. Leadership in

schools has changed also, with decision-making being increasingly shared within the

school. Principal as leader has broadened to school leadership and shared decision-

making.

This chapter will review the research literature pertinent to SBM, school leadership and

school decision-making. It will be organised under the following headings: school-based

management; empowerment of stakeholders under SBM; SBM and school

improvement; school decision-making; school leadership and school decision-making;

school leadership; principal leadership; and, transformational leadership.

School-Based Management

Research concerning the impact of SBM has focussed on the role and responsibilities of

the principal, school level autonomy and the participation and empowerment of the

stake-holders. Decisions are made by the people who have to implement them, and

processes for decision-making should be participatory and democratic. These processes

17

alter the educational power structure and the degree of influence which teachers and

parents have over their school.

A study by Matranga, Horner, Hill and Peltier, (1993) in Nevada USA, was undertaken

to examine the extent to which principals perceived themselves implementing SBM, and

the degree of support given to SBM by superintendents and school board personnel. A

survey of Likert-scale items was administered to all 365 school principals with a

response rate of 43%. Results showed that a majority of principals (70.8%) reported

receiving support from superintendents but only little more than a half (56%) received

support from boards of trustees. Just over half of the principals indicated that they had

implemented aspects associated with SBM. The researchers reported that school boards

and superintendents were largely supportive of the implementation of SBM, however,

they do not account for the reported difference between the degree of support from

school boards compared with the degree of support from superintendents.

As the target of the Matranga et al. (1993) survey were principals, the researchers

expressed concern at what they considered to be a "low response rate," which they

suggested may have been due to regional differences in the state, as well as differences

in the level of interest in the implementation of SBM. The researchers concluded that

where SBM was supported by school boards and superintendents, principals and

teachers were more readily involved in the transition towards SBM.

18

The purpose of a case study by O'Donoghue and O'Brien (1995:413) undertaken in

Western Australia was to investigate the involvement of parents in school-decision

making under a restructured education system. Four primary schools were selected

within a district considered to represent a wide variety of perspectives. A purposive

sampling strategy was used in the selection of teachers for interview, in order to access

as wide a variety of perspectives as possible. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were

undertaken with groups of teachers who were asked questions about their understanding

of the changes relating to parental involvement in schools. As themes arose from

interview data, these themes were further investigated with the teachers. Teachers'

responses were audio-recorded, transcribed and referred back to the teachers, changed as

required, until the account of their shared experiences was acceptable to them.

Three themes concerning teachers perceptions of parental involvement in school

decision-making resulted from the O'Donoghue and Obrien (1995) data analysis. First,

the teachers perceived that parental involvement in school decision-making was being

pursued by policy makers without due regard to the impact on them. Second, teachers

felt that issues raised by parents received a higher priority status than their own

concerns. Third, parental involvement affected teachers' perception of their own role in

curriculum decision-making matters.

The researchers concluded that while schools were in the initial phase of the

restructuring process, the end result might present major changes in the roles of teacher

and parent involvement in schools. O'Donoghue and OBrien claimed that the way

19

teachers viewed change could affect their willingness to adopt change, and in

introducing change "the world of people most closely involved must first be

understood" (p.413).

A study by Dee, Henkin and Pell (2002:41) examined the levels of perceived support for

innovation among public elementary school teachers in a large, mixed ethnic, urban

school district in the southeastern United States, that had adopted SBM. A survey was

sent to all 517 fulltime teachers from 11 randomly selected elementary schools (5%

sample) that utilised SBM and the response rate was 57.1%. Respondents completed the

Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (SSSI); a 61 item self report instrument with a

six-scale Likert-type response, ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Six

traditional and two innovative schools were identified through examination of the school

mission statements and it was found that respondents from the innovative schools scored;

significantly higher on the SSSI than those from traditional schools.

Respondents in the Dee et al. (2002) study also completed measures of "communication,

openness, work autonomy, and formalisation". Mean scores from SSSI mean scores

indicated that respondents perceived their schools as supportive of innovation. There

were no significant differences found for the variables of gender, age, education, years

in the profession and years in their current position. However, perceptions of support for

innovation were found to vary among the schools participating in the study. The

researchers reported finding significant and positive associations between perceived

20

support for innovation and "communication, openness, formalisation, and autonomy"

(P.41).

Results from the Dee et al. (2002) study show that teachers who perceived that there was

support for innovation in their school also reported that the school had clearly defined

responsibilities, open communication and discretion in terms of classroom teaching

programmes. On the other hand, teachers who reported unclear boundaries, inhibited

communication, limited interaction with their colleagues and restraints on the content of

their teaching perceived their school as less likely to support innovation. The researchers

contended that school leaders should be attentive to the requirements for innovative

activities because teachers' perceptions of support for innovation are especially

important in SBM. The attentiveness of a leader to the dimensions of school

organisation that support innovation may determine the extent to which schools are

successful.

Empowerment of Stakeholders under SBM

One of the main aims of SBM is widely believed to be the empowerment of the

stakeholders and the creation of collaborative and shared, democratic decision-making

cultures.

The purpose of a study by Rhinehart, Short and Johnson (1997) was to investigate the

effects of mandated SBM on teachers' perceptions of empowerment and conflict. The

study was conducted in two southeastern states prior to the introduction of SBM in one

21

state (A) and in a second state (B) after the establishment of SBM. Fifty public schools

from State A were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. In State B, two

management structures existed: non-SBM and SBM. The schools were stratified

according to their management structures and 50 schools were randomly selected from

each of the two categories of SBM and non-SBM. In all, three categories of schools

existed: State A non- SBM, State B non-SBM, and State B-SBM.

Data collection instruments used in the Rhinehart et al. (1997) study were the School

Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) and Rahim Organisational Inventory (ROCI-I).

The SPES was used to measure teachers perceptions of empowerment and decision-

making by means of 38 items on a five point Likert-scale. The ROCI-I was designed to

measure conflict of individuals within a school by means of 21 items on a Likert-scale.

In State A, non-SBM: category, 585 teachers from 44 of the 50 schools in the state, ..

returned instruments. In State B, SBM category, 461 teachers from 40 SBM schools in

the state, and in state B, non-SBM category, 294 teachers from 28 non-SBM schools,

returned instruments.

A discriminate analysis was undertaken of the SPES and ROCI-I Data, and findings

indicated that teachers in State B (SBM schools) perceived more involvement in

decision-making and more autonomy in their schools than teachers in State A (non-

SBM schools). In state B, teachers in the non-SBM schools perceived increased

professional growth, autonomy and self efficacy, and less interpersonal conflict. The

22

researchers indicated that submitting the data to a discriminate analysis exposed two

significant Factors. The first factor (state structure) separated teachers in the reform state

from the comparison state, and the second factor (governance structure) separated

teachers in SBM from those in the non-SBM group.

Rhinehart et al. (1997:84) indicated that the findings presented an "interesting

interpretation" as teachers in the non-SBM schools perceived more empowerment than

teachers in the SBM schools and they suggested that "teacher participation may be as

important, if not more important than regulatory beliefs". Rhinehart, Short and Johnson

(1997:84) concluded that the findings suggested that it may not be necessary to "initiate

new governance structures" to shift power for decision-making, but rather, "to develop

plans that allowed beliefs to guide the restructuring process".

A case study in three schools in Canada by Delaney (1997) examined principals' and .

teachers' perceptions as to whether SBM resulted in school improvement. The

researcher spent four weeks in each school (an elementary school, a junior high school

and a senior high school) in the Edmonton school district, and conducted observations

and structured interviews with principals and teachers.

Data analysis showed that the principal's leadership is significant in that, the teachers

considered that the role the school principal played was of critical importance in school

improvement under SBM. Further, shared decision-making, delegation of authority and

23

teacher empowerment were important factors in the relationship between SBM and

school improvement.

The purpose of a study by Beck and Murphy (1998) was to investigate how SBM

worked in a school that was perceived as being successful. An elementary school with a

student population of over 1100 students and located in a low socio-economic area of

Los Angeles was selected as a successful SBM site as part of a reform programme

known as Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now (LEARN). Schools

become affiliated with LEARN only if 75% of all stakeholders voted to join the reform

effort and by doing so they indicated their willingness to work collaboratively.

Beck and Murphy (1998:363) spent three days a week during a school year undertaking

classroom observation, attending parent, faculty, teacher professional development

meetings and conducting semi-structured formal interviews with leaders, teachers,

students and parents. Document analysis was undertaken to determine the progress made

since the introduction of LEARN in 1992.

Data was analysed through the constant comparative method and researchers identified

evidence of "powerful student learning", widespread transformation of teaching,

increased levels of parental involvement and indications of high levels of satisfaction

from students, parents and teachers. School-based management assisted this

transformation in four ways. First, it enabled many changes in a short duration. Second,

LEARN schools have discretion over a wide range of administration procedures. Third,

24

the reform required and encouraged the involvement of all stakeholders in the decision-

making process and, fourth, SBM provided a greater degree of autonomy which had

been a positive factor for those who previously had felt bound by controls. The

researchers concluded that by developing the right conditions in schools it is then

possible to develop structural reform initiatives.

The purpose of a study undertaken by Henkin, Cistone and Dee (2000), was to

investigate teamwork and collaboration in a large city district in the South Eastern

United States where schools have implemented SBM. All 300 principals in the school

district were invited to participate in the study and the response rate was 34.3%.

Respondents completed an Organisational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI),

consisting of 29-items that provided self-reports of behaviour and strategies used to

define, participate in and manage conflict. The descriptors in the items ranged from

always to never. The profile of the respondents reflected the gender and racial mix

consistent with school district records, with half the principals from elementary schools

and the other half showing a balance between middle and senior high school principals.

Most respondents were female, in their 40s or 50s.

Results showed that high levels of group involvement increased the probability that

principals will manage issues of conflict through collaboration and decrease the use of

controlling behaviours. Principals appeared to be more inclined to utilise a consultative

approach to conflict management when teachers were involved in and appeared to be

satisfied with SBM.

25

Henkin, Cistone and Dee (2000:146) concluded that approaches towards conflict

management, which were solution-oriented and involved collaborative problem-

solving, were preferred by principals. They considered that these approaches may work

best "where principals serve in mediative roles and emphasise solution-finding through

a consensual, cooperative process".

SBM and School Improvement

The overall research on the effects of SBM suggests that it is complex and difficult to

accurately assess the contribution of SBM as its relates to school improvements and the

quality of learning outcomes. However, there are a number of research studies in the

area.

Robertson and Briggs (1998: 30) undertook a case study to investigate the results from

the adoption of a SBM approach. Twenty four schools consisting of two elementary, .

two middle / junior high and two high schools in each of four North American school

districts were invited to participate in the study. Schools were selected on the basis that

they had been involved in SBM for a period of three years. Three researchers visited

each school for a one-week period to conduct interviews. Interview questions related to

the implementation of SBM, the extent of positive changes in decision-making, school

strategies and operations, school culture, staff behaviour, and school quality.

Teachers and principals at each of the schools were required to complete a survey to

determine their satisfaction relating to elements of SBM. Two open-ended questions in

26

the survey investigated barriers related to SBM at their school. Information collected at

both the school and district level related to school and student performance, and mission

and goals. A separate case study was written for each school at which they conducted

interviews.

Each case study underwent analysis using coding to assess the amount of change

occurring following the adoption of SBM. Sixteen of the schools were implementing

effective decision-making processes but the same level of success did not carry over into

"the arena of strategic and operational changes" (p.44). Positive cultures were found in

13 of the schools.

Results indicated that changes in governance structures are supported by effective

decision-making practices and that the link between strategic changes and effective

school cultures is ambiguous. Robertson and Briggs (1998:55) concluded from their

study that school improvement occurs through a process of change. School based-

management "seems to have considerable potential as a mechanism through which

school improvement can occur".

Wylie (1999:3) investigated the ten-year impact of the 1988 SBM reforms in New

Zealand, in a series of five studies conducted from 1989 to 1996. Three hundred and

fifty schools participated as part of a stratified random sample of schools. Principals at

these schools were sent surveys and at each school the researchers undertook random

sampling of two trustees and one to three teachers depending on the school size. A

27

random parent sample was also taken from 33 schools. A survey response rate for

principals of 262 of the 350 schools (75%) was achieved, while 376 of 698 trustees

(54%), 889 of 1745 of parents (51%) and 396 of 749 teachers (51%) also responded.

As the aim of Wylie's research was to provide a comprehensive picture of the reforms

and their impact at school level, the surveys were lengthy and comprehensive. Survey

questions were in the form of closed and open questions and cross-tabulation was

undertaken, and results were tested for significance using chi-square analysis.

Wylie (1999:20) identified that the significant changes involved the development of new

forms of partnership between school professionals and boards of trustees working for

the benefit of the students. She also noted that boards reflected a better representation of

parents and that the parent satisfaction rating remained high. Pride and enjoyment in

student achievement was outweighing the workloads related to making SBM work. A

commitment towards professional development as well as changing focus towards

school development processes was noted. Wylie concluded that while schools have a

greater degree of freedom with decision-making, she was less certain about the affect on

students, "it is hard to say if student achievement as a whole has benefited from the shift

to school self-management".

Data from a large study conducted in Tasmania in 1994 by Mulford and Hogan was

analysed by Mulford, Kendall and Kendall (2003), using causal / comparative

methodology. A survey was designed to find out how school personnel perceived the

28

implementation of SBM in government schools in Tasmania. The survey was

administered to teachers, principals, parents and school council representatives with a

response rate from teachers of 57 % representing 77 % of state government schools.

The survey consisted of Likert-scale and open-ended questions. The results indicated

that there were differing perceptions as to the extent of the adoption of SBM. The

majority of primary school principals (65.8%) indicated that it had been adopted to a

"significant extent" compared with 44.4%of secondary school principals and 48.9% of

primary school teachers.

The researchers noted that similar to other countries the introduction of SBM to

Tasmania was accompanied by the belief that there would be an overall improvement in

educational processes. Results indicated that increased commitment was not matched by

involvement in democratic processes, neither did it translate to better learning results in

schools.

The researchers concluded that SBM was significant in its impact but questioned as to

whether that impact was in the right areas in that: in that, the evidence suggested that

while the principals were enthusiastic supporters of SBM, consensus and consultative

processes were not moving beyond the principal. The researchers noted a weakness of

the causal / comparative methodology as being the inability to control variables. On the

other hand inferences drawn as a result of this approach were considered a strength as

they were made under typical circumstances.

29

Educational decentralisation has been recognised by researchers as an organisational

change that has occurred as part of a much wider agenda of reforms. Key features of the

research related to SBM focus on the importance of the participation and the

empowerment of the stakeholders, the development of collaborative decision-making

cultures and the dispersion of power beyond the principal. As a mechanism for bringing

about school improvement SBM has potential particularly where schools have used their

authority to introduce changes that directly affect teaching and learning. However this is

often not the case and the research suggesting a strong connection between SBM and

improved student outcomes is not encouraging.

School Decision-Making

School reform initiatives such as SBM have advocated a greater degree of involvement

by teachers in school governance as a means of fostering change within schools. The

rationale for the increased involvement of teachers in decision-making has been that

enduring educational change and innovation is more likely to occur with the support of

teachers.

Duke and Gansneder (1990) investigated teachers' perceptions of actual and desired

levels of involvement in school decision-making. The data for this study was collected

in 1984, as part of a national study known as the "Good School Project of 100 American

schools". Members of 43 chapters across the country identified a non-random set of

schools in their area that they believed were good schools. Data was collected by survey

30

from 3000 principals, teachers and students in 100 schools. The study focussed on

teachers' perceptions of actual and desired involvement in school decision-making and

of school leadership. The research was undertaken in elementary and secondary schools

but the study report did not provide data to indicate the actual numbers of teachers

involved at the respective school levels.

Teachers were asked to respond to Likert-scale questions to indicate their involvement

in a range of ten types of decision-making relating to discipline, instruction, students,

performance, and staff selection. Factor analyses were conducted for actual

involvement, desired involvement and the discrepancy between the two. Researchers

identified 12 items from the survey that indicated how teachers perceived their principal.

These items were known as the teachers' orientation to school leadership and included

items related to: trust, encouragement, collaboration, cooperation, representation and .

support.

Results indicated that teachers in high schools were of equal or lower likelihood to be

involved in classroom decision-making compared to elementary school teachers; but,

teachers in high schools were more likely to be involved in instructional or

administrative decision-making. Overall, neither group was well represented in

administrative decision-making. The percentage of teachers in both groups, whose level

of actual involvement matched their desired level of involvement, decreased as the

decisions became more managerial; however, for every type of decision more

31

elementary teachers than high school teachers were involved at a level they felt

appropriate.

The researchers refined the survey instrument by developing scales for actual and

desired involvement in two types of decisions, "technical" and "managerial" as well as

developing a scale to measure "teacher orientation to school leadership". This was done

by factor analysis to select the sub-scales and by conducting tests of reliability.

Results showed that teachers who were more involved in either managerial or technical

decisions were more likely to think that they should be and the converse also applied.

For both types of decision-making, deprivation is related to the actual level of

involvement. Those teachers who felt more positively about the principal reported

higher levels of involvement in management and technical decisions, and exhibited less Ls

decision-making deprivation. The researchers contended that their study shows that

where teachers' perceptions of school leadership are positive, teachers are less likely to

desire higher levels of involvement in managerial decision-making and may focus their

energies on technical decisions.

Rice and Schneider (1994) examined teachers' involvement in school decision-making

processes and their job satisfaction, and sought to determine whether or not changes had

occurred during the period in which there had been a considerable focus on teachers'

involvement in decision-making.

32

The population consisted of teachers in public middle schools and junior high schools in

Wisconsin. Twenty-two rural, suburban and urban schools ranging from 375 to 1150

pupils schools participated in the study and twelve teachers, randomly selected from

each of the schools, completed surveys. Two hundred and sixty four teachers were

selected and 261 completed surveys giving a response rate of 98%.

Part one of the study included a Decision Involvement Analysis Questionnaire involving

four questions relating to 20 decision issues. A four-point likert-scale was used for each

question and the decision condition of all respondents regarding their actual and desired

level of involvement was calculated. Part two of the study included a job satisfaction

survey containing 27 items with nine scales.

Results from Rice and Schneider (1994:51) identified a characteristic of the decision- 2

making process which they labelled as a "general decision condition of deprivation".

Teachers reported higher levels of deprivation in decisions related to managerial and

school-wide issues than in technical and instructional issues. Researchers found that a

relationship existed between the level of decision involvement and job satisfaction, in

that low level of perceived involvement equated to a low level of job satisfaction.

The study showed that although increases in involvement in decision-making were

found, teachers desired more involvement in decision-making. Higher levels of

involvement related to increased job satisfaction and teachers perceived levels of

influence. The researchers contended that the findings are of concern, in that, although

33

teachers are more involved in decision-making than in the past, attention needs to be

given to the type of decision-making not just the degree of participation in decision-

making.

Heck and Brandon (1995:10) reported two studies designed to investigate how the

reform of school decision-making responsibilities affects teachers' involvement and

leadership. They contended that there are different approaches to investigating school

reform, one of which is to focus on themes such as 'vision, empowerment participation

and leadership' which relates, in their view, to the 'dynamics of the change process'.

Schools participating in the studies were selected from a state-funded reform effort

programme in the United States, in which schools were encouraged to use school

decision-making procedures.

Two research questions provided the focus for the studies. First, to what extent is

teachers' agreement with the selection of school needs affected by their participation in

decision-making and second, to what extent does teachers expertise affect their

participation in decision-making about school needs?

In the first study, 151 teachers in nine elementary schools returned surveys providing a

response rate of 55%. In the second study, 212 teachers in four elementary schools

returned surveys providing a response rate of 76%. On-site interviews were conducted

with teachers with leadership responsibilities. Teachers in the first study responded to a

survey containing likert-scale responses about their involvement in decision-making

34

related to school improvement. Teachers in the second study completed a similar survey,

however the emphasis was on their specific expertise in areas related to schooling and

the extent of their participation in decision-making processes.

The results of the interviews with teachers across both studies showed that in 50% of

cases decisions were made by consensus. Results of the survey responses indicated that

teachers' involvement in identifying school needs was the strongest predictor of their

agreement with the identified need; and that teacher expertise had the greatest direct

effect on their involvement in decision-making. In both of the studies, Heck and

Brandon (1995:12) found that teacher leadership was linked to higher levels of

participation in decision-making processes.

Heck and Brandon (1995:14) contended that involvement by teachers in decision-

making lessens resistance to change and that school improvement requires the

involvement and empowerment of school personnel in areas in which they have

expertise and an interest in the outcome.

A longitudinal five-year study was conducted by Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-

Conyers (1996) which examined relationships between participative decision-making,

instructional improvement and student learning in K -8 schools in a United States

Midwestern metropolitan school district, between 1990 and 1994. In order to facilitate

teachers' participation in decision-making, site councils were established in each school.

The researcher surveyed teachers at intervals of first year, third year and fifth year of the

35

five-year study period of the establishment of site councils. Surveys were distributed at

staff meetings and by mail to all teaching staff in spring 1990, 1992, and 1994. The

survey was designed to find out if teachers' perceptions of involvement in decision-

making had changed over the five-year period. The survey was constructed according to

an analytical model consisting of six elements as follows: teachers' perceptions of

participative decision-making, autonomy, accountability, organisational learning,

instructional improvement and student outcomes. Data was collected from observation

of the site councils and was used to validate the survey results relating to participative

decision-making.

Three stages of data analysis were undertaken. First, school level means and standard

deviations were calculated for each measure of the analytical model for the first and last

years in which they were obtained. Second, change scores were calculated relating to

"accountability", "autonomy" and "organisational learning" and correlational analysis

was undertaken.

Results revealed a large decline in teachers' perception of "individual autonomy" across

schools in the district, but a large increase in their perception of accountability. The

researchers claimed that their results support the use of the analytical model for

analysing the instructional outcomes of participative decision-making; and they

contented that teacher participation in school-based decision-making is related

positively to instructional improvement and student outcomes.

36

Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-Conyers (1996:193-194) concluded with two findings:

first, the relationship between organisational change mechanisms and instructional

improvement "are generally weaker" than the relationship of these mechanisms to

student outcomes. Second, participative decision-making can have a "negative as well as

a positive relationship" to student learning, in that some schools with "participative and

instructionally orientated councils" showed gains in scores on standardised tests.

Schools with the "least participative, non-instructionally orientated councils" revealed a

decline in test scores.

School Leadership and School Decision-Making

Research on successful school decision-making highlights the important role of the

principal and school leaders. More broadly, research on successful school reform

initiatives highlights the importance of decision-making processes being dispersed

beyond the principal and boards of trustees to other decision—making groups.

Blase and Blase (1999) investigated the relationship between the principals' perspective

of shared governance and the challenge of becoming involved in collaborative decision-

making. Eighteen principals identified as "exemplary principals", affiliated with the

"League of Professional Schools in the State of Georgia", were selected for the study. A

purpose of the "League of Professional Schools" was to create democratic decision-

making structures to promote teacher, parent and student involvement in school matters.

Nine principals were selected for participation in the study based on reports of the

principal's "success", "democratic approaches to school leadership" and "shared

37

governance in public schools". The sample consisted of four males and five females,

representing three elementary, four middle schools and two high schools, and a mix of

rural, suburban and urban schools, and diverse ethnic groupings.

Data was collected in accordance with symbolic interaction theory and involved

interviews with the nine principals in their schools. Principals provided background

information about themselves and their schools. The interviews were open-ended and

follow-up discussion was undertaken to clarify points. Interviews were audio-taped,

reviewed and transcribed and the researcher consulted with each principal as to the

accuracy of the transcript. Data analysis was undertaken according to the guidelines for

grounded theory and constant comparative analysis and the data was analysed to

determine emergent categories and themes that were characteristic of the database.

Results reported by Blase and Blase (1999:484) indicated that the work of principals

identified as exemplary "shared-governance principals" is characterised by becoming

involved, "letting go of power", " supportive processes", and "supportive structures".

According to the researchers, shared governance principals were not dominating and did

not have a "preoccupation with self', were more likely to work with others as equals,

develop trust and were highly collaborative.

The researchers claimed that "prospective and practicing principals" need to reflect on

their readiness to become involved in a shared leadership role and in particular, they

should consider as to whether their beliefs are consistent with those perceived by

38

shared-governance principals. However, the researchers acknowledged that the schools

selected for this study already experienced high levels of school collaboration and that

these results might not occur as readily in schools with top-down management styles.

Brown, Boyle and Boyle (1999) sought to establish if delegation of whole school

decision-making involved and empowered the middle management level in the school.

They investigated alternative models of management for decision-making, and sought to

identify commonalities amongst middle managers regarding their current models. Their

research was undertaken from a random sample of 21 secondary schools in the north

west of England in schools located across a range of urban areas with a catchment

including a mix of public and private dwellings.

Semi-structured interviews schedules were developed, one for the middle management

teacher and one for the headteacher. Interviews were conducted with the headteachers

which involved gathering details related to their management models and their views of

the decision-making roles of middle management. Interviews were conducted with the

middle management teachers to investigate their perceptions of the decision-making

model currently operating in each of the schools. Data collection and coding procedures

were used to develop categories and themes from the data, which was coded according

to grounded theory guidelines.

Three categories of schools emerged from the data. The first category was schools

which showed no evidence of shared decision-making. The second category was schools

39

which demonstrated movement towards middle management access to whole school •

decision-making and the third category was schools which, were fully operating a

shared decision-making model. Analysis of the interview data showed that each of the

three categories had schools in the range of 500 to 1000 or more pupils and that

decision-making models were not linked to school size.

Schools, which emerged as being those with a commitment to collaboration, were those

where the middle management was actively involved in whole-school decision-making

and where the headteacher shared this perception. Schools which demonstrated less

frequent opportunities for collaboration were those where the middle management

believed that the headteachers perceived them as having a whole-school management

and policy decision-making role. Middle management also had positive perceptions of

the management model related to decision-making. Schools that exhibited little

collaboration, cooperation or consultation between middle managers on whole school

decision-making exhibited a considerable gap between the headteacher and themselves

in decision-making.

The researchers contended that the evidence from their study indicated that middle

management required more involvement in school decision-making and sought a

distributed leadership model. They contended that collegial models are the dominant

paradigm but acknowledged difficulties of attainability and suggested further research.

Brown, Boyle and Boyle (1999:321) indicated that the number of headteachers

interviewed (12) was small when compared to the number of managers in the study

40

(which was not reported) and that the conclusions should be viewed as "suggestive

rather than definitive in nature".

The purpose of a comparative study by Gelzheiser, Meyers and Meyers (2001:277) was

to examine the leadership behaviours exhibited by principals, team leaders and other

team members, in a primary school, a middle school, and a high school in one school

district in New York. They contended that much of the research related to shared

decision-making lacked "systematic observation of team functioning". The schools that

were part of this study were selected because they were involved in the "National Goals

2000" reform effort that mandated shared decision-making teams. Participant-observer

methodology was a key feature of the research design.

Each school had a decision-making team of between 11 to 13 members. The school

team met between one to two times per month and held between seven to thirteen

meeting times after school hours. Meeting times were between one to two hours

duration. All principals and team leaders received guidance and training on consensus

building and facilitative group processes. Overall thirteen interviews were conducted.

Meeting agendas were collected from each of the teams and thirty-three meetings were

observed and audio-taped resulting in written summaries. Two meetings from each team

were completely transcribed. The aim was to create a strong database from which to

draw conclusions. Two coding systems based on decision content and decision-making

processes were used along with a third coding system which focussed on statements and

analysis related to participants involvement in decision-making.

41

In the middle school and the high school, the school team established shared leadership

strategies; although the principal was prominent in the decision-making process, he was

not considered to be an inhibitor to decision-making. On the other hand, the primary

school team exhibited dissension and a dominating principal, which the researchers

claimed as an indication that teachers did not feel included in decision-making

processes.

Gelzheiser, Meyers and Meyers (2001:309) claimed that a major factor in the success of

the two "shared leadership" teams was the importance of "establishing a shared vision"

in promoting participative decision-making. They also felt that all three teams could

have functioned better if they had received additional training. A key finding was that

observational feedback could support and complement shared decision-making teams..

The researchers (2001:280) contended that there were two outcomes of significance in

their study. First, they claimed that no prior research of this nature was found that used a

similar methodology to examine leadership behaviours related to shared decision-

making. Second, that leadership and the team effectiveness was measured by the

"number of decisions made and efficiency in reaching decisions". The study enabled the

researchers to make comparisons regarding leadership and its effects on the decision-

making teams.

42

Kleins (2002:118) undertook a study to investigate the decision-making patterns

attributed to principals operating at various "success levels" in the school. He contended

that school effectiveness depends to a large extent on the ability of the principal, and

that a characteristic ascribed to successful leaders is "high competence in problem-

solving and decision-making". Ninety-nine elementary and junior high school principals

were chosen by random sample from a district of the Israeli Ministry of Education. The

study investigated three phases of decision-making which included the "process",

"classification and analysis", and "the importance of the problem according to the

decision-maker".

The greater the level the decision-maker ascribed to each of these points by

distinguishing between objective and subjective aspects, then the higher the quality of

the decision according to the researcher. Three groups were represented. Principals were

ranked by their supervisors and the rankings were grouped as "highly successful",

"moderately successful", and "unsuccessful" as principals, based on assessments by a

school supervisor and an external advisor. The assessments of principals in each group

were based on an examination of school documentation, staff stability, interviews with

staff and parents, meetings with the principal, and school visits.

After the principals were ranked by their supervisors they responded to a survey, which

investigated independent variables related to decision-making such as "analysis",

"making a decision" and "reporting in detail the considerations in making the decision".

Differences between the successful and unsuccessful principals were scrutinised

43

according to the three stages of the decision-making process and a regression analysis

was undertaken to determine the contribution of the decision-making patterns used by

the principal, to their success as a principal.

Results showed that, in the first two stages of decision-making, successful principals

regarded it as important to gather data from objective sources compared to the

unsuccessful principals whose emphasis was on subjective sources. In the final decision-

making stage both successful and unsuccessful principals had a preference for the

subjective sources, typically being a high level of consultation, although this was more

apparent with the successful principals.

Klein (2003:132) contended that a process of appointing a principal, which included a

decision-making test combined with a locus of control test, would help identify _

unsuitable candidates; however, he cautioned that the development of accurate tests to

distinguish between average and high ability principals would be required.

Research related to educational decision-making supports the contention that the

increased involvement of teachers in decision-making processes is more likely to lead to

lasting educational change and innovation. Where decision-making delegation is

dispersed and distributed beyond the principal and where teachers are actively and

genuinely involved in decision—making, teachers perceive greater levels of

empowerment and job satisfaction and are less likely to be resistant to change. Where

there are variations of teachers' level of involvement in decision making this might be

44

related to teachers perceptions of the school leadership and the principal's beliefs about

school leadership. Principals considered to be exemplary are characterised in the

research literature as being leaders who focus on developing shared governance and

vision, are highly consultative and who promote participative decision-making.

School Leadership

Research on the development of successful schools acknowledges the importance of the

leadership role. The findings related to educational leaders suggest that effective and

purposeful leadership is generally accepted as being a central factor in a school's ability

to sustain improvement and to operate as a professional learning community.

A study by Blase (1987:592) examined teachers' perspectives on effective school

leadership. Teachers and principals were interviewed in a two-phase study using both•

structured and unstructured interviews and what the researcher called "informal

interviews".

In the interviews for the first phase of the study, teachers were asked to identify and

discuss personal and professional life factors which they believed contributed to

significant changes in their work perspectives. A second phase of data collection

involved a series of three interviews with 40 teachers to find out how teachers

perceived dimensions of principals' effectiveness and interviews were conducted with

ten teachers who were selected because the views they held were not adequately

represented in the study. In the second phase, interviews focussed on themes

45

representing teachers' definitions of effective and ineffective school leadership, and

teachers' were asked to identify and fully describe characteristics of principals with

whom they had worked.

The sample for both phase one and phase two consisted of between 75 to 80 male and

female teachers in an urban, bi-racial high school in the southeastern United States. The

teachers in the sample were highly qualified, committed to their work and satisfied with

their school leadership, although the process of establishing this commitment is not

described in the research study.

Data collected was coded according to guidelines for grounded theory analysis. Constant

comparative analysis was used to code the data, and "task" and "consideration" related

dimensions of leadership were used as an organising framework. Data was analysed

through open coding and results indicated that leadership orientation was a significant

factor shaping teachers work perspectives.

Task related dimensions of leadership included accessibility, consistency, knowledge /

expertise, expectations, decisiveness, goals / direction, follow through, time

management, and problem solving orientation. Consideration related dimensions of

leadership included support, participation / consultation, fairness / equitability,

recognition and delegation. Results indicated that principals perceived by teachers as

effective principals exhibited most of each of the factors identified and it was found that

these factors were interrelated.

46

Blase (1987:607-608) concluded that leadership factors affected teacher motivation,

involvement and morale, and improved the possibility of productive relationships

between teachers and that these relationships were "highly interdependent". The

researcher acknowledged that the study is only one perspective and suggested further

research related to teachers' perceptions of "effective principals would be helpful".

Cheng (1994:182) investigated the relationship between teachers' locus of control, job

attitudes and perceptions of school organisational characteristics, such as leadership.

The sample of teachers was drawn from a homogeneous group of schools referred to as

"aided secondary schools" in Hong Kong. Aided secondary schools are established and

operated on the basis of codes issued by the Hong Kong government. Sixty-five schools

were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study and 54 schools accepted.

Within each sampled school 12 teachers were randomly selected and asked to complete

measuring instruments. The average numbers of respondents in each school was 10.89

and the total number involved in the study was 588.

The instruments in the study measured organisational characteristics, attitude, and locus

of control. The sample of teachers was divided into two groups consisting of teachers

with an internal locus of control (ILC) (N=321) and those teachers with an external

locus of control (ELC) (N=267). Responses to the measures of organisational

characteristics and attitudes were analysed according to the two assigned groups of locus

of control.

47

Results showed that teachers with an ILC tended to have positive job attitudes and

feelings and were more committed, satisfied, self-motivated, self-assured and perceived

school leadership with a high initiating structure, high consideration and high charisma.

The researcher indicated that a possible explanation for this finding is that those teachers

with an ELC have higher expectations of their school leaders and depended on them

more than those teachers with an ILC. Teachers with an ILC tended to perceive

instructions and communications in the school as being more formalised whereas

teachers with an ELC tended to perceive that the school was less formalised.

Cheng (1994:186-187) concluded that locus of control is a "powerful indicator of

teachers' job attitudes, feelings and perceptions about organisational characteristics".

Teachers with an ILC appear to have more positive perceptions of the school

organisation than teachers with an ELC. Cheng contended that school leadership and

culture may make a difference in teachers' perception of school organisational factors.

Hsieh and Shen (1998:107) in the State of Michigan investigated teachers', principals'

and superintendents' perceptions "of a good educational leader". The study consisted of

three focus groups comprising seven people representing superintendents, principals,

and teachers. The samples were selected by consulting the Michigan Education

Directory.

48

Focus groups were used to collect data and the primary questions were. "What are the

skills of good educational leaders? What might a good educational leader need to know?

What values would you expect good educational leaders to hold?". At the end of the

discussion for each question, the moderators asked each focus group. "What is the most

important skill, knowledge and value of a good educational leader?" The interviews

were audio-taped and the data transcribed verbatim and codes were developed for each

of three question domains: skill, knowledge and value.

Results showed that in the skill domain teachers, principals and superintendents

identified the qualities that educational leaders should have as being good levels of

"communication", "problem-solving", "organisational", "collaboration", "modelling",

"decision-making", "listening", "interpersonal" and "client and community skills". All

three groups agreed that communication and listening skills were the important skills. A..

range of types of knowledge was identified but with differing views regarding their

importance. Teachers, principals and superintendents identified 18 characteristics, none

of which were common to each other.

Hsieh and Shen (1998:122) concluded that the results showed both similarities and

differences existed among the groups. More differences exist in the skill and knowledge

domains than in the value domain while the moral perspective was common to each

group. The researchers acknowledged the small samples in this study and that a

limitation with focus group research is the possibility that participants may be

influenced by the group interaction and opinion of others. However they concluded that

49

the findings have implications for explaining "the leadership phenomenon" and for

developing future school leaders.

A study by Leonard and Leonard (1999) focussed on identifying leadership sources for

implementing new programmes and teaching practices at three selected schools in an

urban area of eastern Canada. Two elementary schools and a high school, with 19, 36

and 37 teachers respectively, were identified for the study. Each school had a full-time

principal and a half-time deputy principal. Teachers were asked to complete a survey

indicating those groups they considered to be most influential in the implementation of

new programmes or teaching practices.

The survey choices included components relating to school administration as well as

school councils. Respondents were asked to make as many selections as they wished,

including others not listed. They were also asked to identify the single most influential

source for change. Specific detail related to the survey construction and data analysis

information was not reported in the research study.

Results indicated that in each of the participating schools, the principal was the most

widely identified source of leadership in implementing new programmes or teaching

practices. Responses for the three schools ranged from 50% - 63%. The high school

ranked principals as the most influential source of leadership with a response of 74%,

with elementary schools lower at 39% - 25%. Deputy principals were not perceived as a

predominant source of influential leadership in any of the schools.

50

Leonard and Leonard (1999:239) claimed that the results support the "continuing

recognition of the pivotal role played by school principals in school improvement

initiatives". An issue raised by the researchers concerns perceived formal and informal

influence. Staff members in the high school and one of the primary schools considered

informal initiatives for change to be greater than formal structures such as committees.

The researchers concluded two findings. First, as the factors that influence innovation

change within schools, new frames of reference need to be considered. Second,

collaboration is important and formal opportunities while desirable are not the only

effective means of collaborating.

In a study by Hipp and Huffman, (2000:290) dimensions of leadership were examined to

see how they were perceived in schools. Adapted from a study by Hord in 1997 the

interactive leadership dimensions of shared vision and values, shared and supportive

leadership, collective learning and application, supportive conditions, and shared

personal practice were identified as common to schools operating as "professional

learning communities".

Nineteen schools drawn from nine states in the midwest, southeast and northwest of the

USA were selected for the study. Thirty-eight principal and teacher representatives (one

principal and one teacher from each of the 19 schools) were interviewed by telephone

using a semi-structured interview protocol. The interviews were audio-taped,

transcribed, and analysed using a series of inter-rater reliability techniques. The

51

transcripts were coded for recurring themes and then reviewed and validated by another

researcher.

Through analysis of data, using the existence of each of the five leadership dimensions

as criteria, schools were categorised into two groups: schools with a high level of

readiness for developing as a learning community and schools with a low level of

readiness for developing as a learning community. Principals and teachers were again

interviewed to confirm evidence of the leadership dimensions existing within their

school, and that the categorisation of the schools, in terms of readiness to develop as a

learning community, had been appropriately determined.

Results indicated that schools classified as high-readiness to develop a learning

community and low-readiness schools varied significantly. In "high-readiness" schools,

principals were perceived as pro-active, supportive, and innovative and had high

expectations focussed on student learning and teacher change management. Teachers in.

"high-readiness" schools indicated that conditions of trust and respect had been

established which supported shared decision-making and the development and

implementation of a shared vision. In "low-readiness schools", evidence of shared

visions was not found. Resistance to change and a lack of trust or openness were evident

in "low-readiness" schools.

Hipp and Huffman (2000:306) concluded that the key findings of the study related to the

leadership practices of the principal. Principals in high readiness schools were seen as

52

being collaborative, empowering and operating shared leadership and decision-making

structures.

Principal Leadership

Effective school principals are regarded as a key to education change and reform.

Research studies generally support the notion that principal leadership can make a

difference in student learning and to the practice of teachers. The attitudes and values of

principals are believed to be a major influence in the way that they interpret their role.

Research suggests that the school principalship needs to be viewed in such a way that

cognitive, cultural, economic and political dimensions are seen as important in

determining the changing role. More broadly, research on school reform initiatives

highlights the significant and evolving role of principal leadership in the restructuring of

schools.

A study by Kowalski, Reitzug, McDaniel and Otto (1992) examined teachers' and

principals' perceptions of the skills required for principal effectiveness. Three research

questions were addressed: differences in teachers' perceptions of skill categories

necessary for principal effectiveness according to the size of school; differences in

teachers' and principals' perceptions of skill categories necessary for principal

effectiveness; and the differences that teachers' and principals' assigned to individual

skills.

53

A survey was administered to teachers and principals in a random stratified sample

drawn from 36 schools in the Indiana school directory. Stratification was according to

type and size of school and included twelve each of elementary, middle, and high

schools. Within each category, four large, four medium, and four small schools related

to school population were selected. The numbers differed for each school within and

between categories.

A 24-item survey was drawn from eight categories of principalship skills covering

technical, conceptual and human skills. Each school received ten teacher surveys and a

principal survey. Principals were asked to distribute the surveys to the first ten teachers

on their school roster and teachers were asked to rank order skills with regard to their

perceptions of each skill's importance to principal effectiveness. Twenty- eight of the

thirty-six schools returned surveys and the total number returned was 240, of which 212

were teachers surveys and 28 were from principals, giving a 60.6% individual return

rate.

Data was analysed, testing for significance using one-factor and two-factor analysis of

variance. Results indicated that teachers considered human skills to be most important to

principal effectiveness with elementary teachers responses the highest. Technical skills

were perceived as the least important category by all three of the teachers groups. Both

teachers and principals rated human skills as the most important category but teachers

placed greater importance on human skills and lesser importance on technical skills than

54

did principals, while there was no statistically significant differences between the way

the groups rated conceptual skills.

Kowalski, Reitzug, McDaniel and Otto (1992:309) concluded that the study provided

insight into the skills perceived by teachers and principals to be essential for principal

effectiveness, and in the process raised a number of issues related to the preparation of

school principals and practices of school for administration. These issues include

questioning the importance to "emphasise technical knowledge" as compared to "an

increased emphasis on human relations skills."

A study by Short (1994:493) examined the role of the principal in the growth and the

development of empowered schools where participant groupings were functioning as

self-managing. The research question guiding the study focused on identifying the

attitudes, roles and knowledge utilised by the principals in each empowered school that

encouraged self-managing work groups to become self-evaluative, self-monitoring, and

self-reinforcing.

All of the schools in the study were located in the eastern and central part of a middle

Atlantic state and were from four districts, two suburban and two urban districts where

the principals in each school had been in their positions for eight to ten years.

Observations, interviews and document analysis was used to collect the data. The four

sites selected for the study were chosen on the basis of autonomous functioning and self-

direction exhibited by teams within the school.

55

To collect the data required, it was necessary to observe self-managing team

interactions. Observations of the principal were conducted over a six-month period and

focused on those behaviours, actions and roles that fostered autonomy and self-direction

within teams. Interviews took place and with the principal and teachers in the teams and

focus group interviews were held with students. Data analysis included the coding of

role behaviours, attitudes and knowledge of principals in developing self-managing

teams derived from observations, interview transcripts and school documents. The data

was reviewed for identification of parallel and dissenting responses and for the

identification of frequently occurring variables.

Results from the study indicated that the roles and behaviours assumed by principals

related to four central themes. First, behaviour of the principals in each of the four

schools was helping the team to engage in reflection. Second, the role the principal

played in facilitating the focusing of the team on goals. The teams that succeeded in

becoming self-managing were those that established clear goals and knew how to move

forward. Third, the principal encouraged team members to be critical of their

performance by modelling self-criticism. Finally, self-reinforcement by the four

principals in the study in acknowledging their own success. Short (1994:500) concluded

that the behavioural themes "gleaned from the principals" in this study, such as

"facilitative behaviours that encourage self-managing work groups", would contribute to

the understanding of the kind of leadership behaviour that fosters self-managing teams

in schools.

56

A study by Gonzales and Short (1996) investigated the relationship between the

principal's use of power bases and teachers perceived level of empowerment.

Participants in the study included 301 teachers from six elementary schools, five middle

schools and three high schools in an urban school district in the state of Florida. The

data indicated that 216 (71.8%) of the teachers were female, 81(26.9%) were male.

The study was described to teachers in staff meetings in each participating school and

teachers who agreed to participate in the study were given a week to complete the

instruments. The School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) was used to measure

teachers' perceived levels of empowerment. It consisted of 38 statements on a five-point

likert-scale, which contained six subscales: decision-making, professional growth,

status, self-efficacy, autonomy and impact.

Teachers' perceptions of the principal's use of power was measured by the Rahim

Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) which contained 29 items, using a five point likert-

scale, to measure five power bases: coercive power, reward power, legitimate power,

expert power, and referent power. Construct validity of the RLPI was partly tested

through factor analysis. Data was analysed using multiple regression analysis and the

results revealed that the variables of expert power, referent power, and reward power

contribute significantly to the way in which teachers perceive their level of

empowerment. Data analysis showed no relationship between teachers' perceptions of

empowerment and teachers characteristics such as age, gender, experience, school level

and educational background.

57

Gonzales and Short (1996:214) concluded that "expert power", "reward power" and

"referent power" were "powerful sources of influence that principals can use in creating

an empowering environment for teachers". Teachers in the study indicated that the more

that they were empowered the more they believed that their principals did not use

reward or punishment to influence teachers work and behaviour. The researchers

claimed that "expert power" offered principals the most potential for influencing

teachers for school improvement.

A study by Blase and Blase (2000) examined teachers' perspectives on principals'

everyday instructional leadership characteristics and the impact of those characteristics

on teachers. Data for the study was collected from 809 full-time public school teachers

taking courses at universities located in the south-eastern, mid-western, and north-

eastern USA. The data was collected by means of an open-ended survey using the

Inventory of Strategies Used by Principals to Influence Classroom Teaching (ISUPICT).

Respondents comprised 251 males and 558 females, 275 rural, 291 suburban and 243

urban teacher's, and 380 elementary, 177 middle /junior high school and 252 high

school teachers. Their responses included descriptions of 398 male and 411 female

principals. Data from the respondents was coded according to the guidelines for

inductive-exploratory research and comparative analysis.

Results showed that, in effective principal-teacher interaction related to instruction,

teachers preferred flexible rather than rigid teaching procedures and methods. Two

58

themes emerged from the data. Principals accustomed to talking with teachers promoted

reflection, and professional growth. Effective principals valued talking with teachers and

encouraging them to critically reflect on their learning and professional practice by

making suggestions, providing feedback, modelling, inquiry, and giving praise.

The results indicated that principals used six strategies to promote professional growth

as follows: emphasising the study of teaching and learning, supporting collaboration,

developing coaching relationships, encouraging and supporting programme changes,

using adult learning strategies, and implementing action research to inform instructional

decision-making.

Blase and Blase (2000:136) concluded that talking with teachers to promote reflection

and professional learning and promoting professional growth are the two main

dimensions of effective instructional leadership. Principals who are developing as

effective instructional leaders should work to "integrate reflection and growth" to build

a school culture for instructional improvement.

Transformational Leadership

During a time of school restructuring, a transformational approach to school leadership

has been seen as a way of leading schools through complex changes and challenges.

Transformational leadership is characterised as being people orientated, where leaders

build relationships and a commitment to a shared vision with all members of the school

community.

59

Kirby, Paradise and King (1992:306) investigated the degree to which educational

leaders were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviours.

One hundred and three educators from six different United States school districts

responded to multi level questionnaire (MLQ) items regarding their immediate

supervisor.

The sample consisted of 88(85.4%) teachers from kindergarten to 12 th grade, 7 (6.8%)

principals, and 8 (7.8%) assistant school administrators. All of the subjects were

enrolled in university graduate classes. The leaders that they describe include 88

(85.4%) principals, 3 (2.9%) superintendents, and 12(11.7%) other office

administrators. Scores for the MLQ were calculated by averaging item scores for each

factor but the number of items and the construction of the MLQ were not provided.

Results indicated that "charisma", "individualised consideration", and "contingent

reward" were related to perceived effectiveness of, and satisfaction with, the leader. The

researchers expressed concern in accounting for perceived effectiveness once the

association with satisfaction was removed. A step-wise regression analysis showed that

the only MLQ factor that augmented the power of satisfaction was "intellectual

stimulation". Kirby, Paradise and King (1992:306) concluded that "charsima alone"

does not explain leadership effectiveness because it neglects the "observable behaviours

and characteristics of leaders that make them appear to be charismatic."

60

Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) examined the influences of transformational school

leadership on teacher perceptions of the principal. It was the researcher's view that

transformational leadership was well suited to the demands of complex reform agendas,

such as school-based management initiatives. The researchers conducted a survey of

teachers and principals in a large school system in Canada which measured dimensions

of transformational leadership. The surveys also collected data that related to teacher,

leader and school characteristics.

Jantzi and Leithwood (1996:525) found that because leadership is an influencing

process, being perceived as a leader by teachers is just as important to a leader's

effectiveness as is a particular leadership behaviour. The researchers reported that

teachers' perceptions of what things a principal should do was significant in their

judgment of a principal as an effective leader. They concluded that "doing good work on

behalf of one's school" by the principal influenced teachers' perception of principal

leadership.

A study by Osterman and Crow (1997:390) examined role conceptions of newly

appointed urban principals as a means of identifying personal and organisational forces

that influence the emergence of transformational leadership. The study took place in the

New York City Board of Education, which had experienced a high turnover of 25% of

principals as a result of an early retirement package. A survey was distributed to 316

new principals, four to five months after they entered their new positions. The purpose

of the survey was to develop a descriptive profile of these principals. The survey

61

consisted of 36 open-ended and closed questions relating to biographical and career

information, leadership beliefs and problem solving processes. Descriptive statistics

were used to develop a demographic and experience profile of the principals and content

analysis was used with the open-ended questions to identify patterns and to illustrate

closed responses. The response rate of 73% consisted of 74% elementary schools, 19%

junior high or intermediate schools, and 7% high schools and 1% special schools. The

average age was 46 years and 58% of the respondents were women.

Results showed that when the principals first entered the position their expectations

were of traditional role conceptions with responses divided evenly between four areas as

follows: leadership, management, human relations and personal characteristics. Fifty

percent of the responses relating to leadership focused on transformational leadership

behaviour. Principals rated student achievement, space and facilities and bureaucratic

procedures as the most serious problems while student morale and staff support was

rated moderately serious.

Fifty percent of principals rated three areas as strategic priorities, namely: first

developing positive working relationships with teachers, parents and students: second

promoting instructional supervision: third motivating staff to become involved in school

improvement. The researchers claimed these results indicated that new principals

recognised the influential role that the teachers and parents played and the need to

develop positive relationships, however, they gave little understanding to school culture

and conditions. Developing positive working relationships with district personnel rated

62

low even though the relationship with the district personnel had the ability to improve

bureaucratic issues. The researchers pointed out that the principals retained the view of

their role as instructional leader but ignored the implications of the bureaucracy of

which they were apart. While some principals were familiar with, and advocated

concepts of, transformational leadership, their primary goals were management and

instruction.

Osterman and Crow (1997:390) contended that the results indicated that the principals

while outwardly adopting the "language of transformational leadership" their

perspective of themselves was as managers and instructional leaders. They concluded

that reform requires the principals to act as change agents and that they need to be given

the autonomy necessary to exercise empowered leadership.

A study by Barnett, McCormick and Conners (2001) investigated the relationship

between the transformational and transactional leadership behaviours of school

principals, in the Sydney metropolitan area in New South Wales. Twelve secondary

schools were randomly selected from the population of secondary schools, and 15

teachers were randomly selected from each school to complete a survey. A total of 124

teachers completed surveys giving a response rate of 68%. The sample comprised 54%

female and 46% male teachers and 75% were aged 30 to 59 years. The teachers in the

sample held various positions in the school, including full-time classroom teachers

(57%), head teacher (23%), deputy principal (5%) and others (15%). A total of 64% of

63

the sample had more than eleven years teaching experience and 60% had ten years of

this experience in their current school.

A multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) was used to measure leadership style,

based on three constructs of, transformational leadership, transactional leadership and

non-leadership. Results show that in the twelve schools involved both transformational

and transactional leadership were identified, however the teachers in the study did not

distinguish between the transformational leadership behaviours of charisma, intellectual

stimulation and inspirational motivation.

The finding that teachers did not distinguish between the transformational leadership

behaviour "individual concern" and the transactional leadership behaviour, "contingent

reward" indicated to the researchers that both leadership styles in practice are

intertwined. Barnett et al. (2001:32) concluded that the study suggests "that it may be

presumptuous per se to advocate transformational leadership" as the best way of

restructuring schools and that further research is needed to clarify perceptual differences

that exist with transformational leadership.

A study by Lam (2002:442) which investigated transformational leadership and its role

on school operations, sought to determine if the role of transformational leadership was

universal or culturally specific. School staff from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Western

Australia and central Canada, were included in the study. In Hong Kong data for the

study was drawn from sixty-seven public schools made up of 31 elementary and 36

64

secondary government and subsidised schools, (89% of the target population). In

Taiwan, 900 teaching staff from 88 public schools, 51 elementary and 37 secondary

schools (100% of the target population), and in Western Australia, 260 teaching staff

from six secondary schools (90% of the target population) took part. In Central Canada,

265 teaching staff from six secondary schools (50% of the target population) took part.

Survey data was subject to factor and regression analysis.

The results showed that the effects of transformational leadership on organisational

learning (OL) were equally significant when compared with the effects of other school

factors, such as "structure" and "culture". In Hong Kong and Taiwan, leadership played

a secondary role to school structure in facilitating OL processes. In Western Australia,

culture exerted a more dominant role than leadership but in Central Canada the role of

leadership was dominant. However, the researchers point out that due to the low

response rate from the Canadian sample, the results may need to be treated with caution.

Lam (2002:448-449) contended that school culture and structure are closely linked to

transformational leadership effects because the way in which these factors impact on OL

and leadership effectiveness in transforming schools is dependent on the way the school•

is organised, which Lam terms the "formal arrangements of work". Lam concluded that

the study supports the critical role assumed by the school leadership in developing "well

conceived coping strategies" to deal with the myriad of pressures faced by schools.

65

Research findings support the contention that leadership style plays an influential role in

determining the development of effective schools (Blase, 1987). Principal leadership

that has as its focus the development of collegial relationships, trust, empowerment and

support allows teachers the opportunity to work collectively toward school improvement

(Leonard and Leonard, 1999). Research shows that the leadership that teachers perceive

that makes a difference is seen to be both transformational and distributive (Jantzi and

Leithwood, 1996; Lam, 2002).

Summary

During the last decade leadership in New Zealand schools has undergone considerable

change as the devolution of responsibility towards SBM has meant that there has been a

shift in focus from centralised control to local decision-making (Wylie, 1999). This

chapter has focussed on the research literature relating to SBM and leadership in order

to inform the study, which examined the way, that teachers and principals perceived

school leadership in a SBM context.

The key points from this review of the research literature can be summarised as follows.

• School leadership that teachers perceive as making a difference is seen to be both

transformational and distributive (Jantzi and Leithwood, 1996; Lam, 2002).

• Effective principals were perceived by teachers as exhibiting both consideration

and task related dimensions of leadership and these were seen to be interrelated

(Blase, 1987; Kowalski et al., 1992).

• The locus of control that teachers have, whether internal or external, affects the

way that teachers perceive leadership characteristics of the principal and the

66

organisation of the school (Cheng, 1994).

• Schools identified as having a high readiness for developing as a learning

community perceived the principal as proactive, supportive and innovative with

high expectations focussed on student learning and teacher change management

(Hipp and Huffman, 2000).,

• Qualities identified by teachers, principals and superintendents as qualities that

school leaders should possess included good levels of communication, problem

solving, interpersonal and client and community skills (Hsieh and Shen, 1998).

• The variables of expert power, referent power and reward power were seen by

teachers as contributing significantly to the way in which they perceived their

level of empowerment in the school (Gonzales and Short, 1996).

• Where teachers perceive principals as doing what they consider a principal

should do, they perceive the principal as a positive and effective leader (Jantzi

and Leithwood, 1996; Dee, Henkin and Pell, 2002).

• Transition towards SBM initiatives is more readily accepted when it is supported

by boards, superintendents, principals and teachers (Matranga, Homer, Hill and

Peltier 1993; Heck and Brandon, 1995; O'Donoghue and Obrien, 1995; Beck

and Murphy, 1998).

• Teachers identified that the role that the school principal played was of critical

importance in school improvement under SBM (Delaney, 1997). High levels of

participation in school decision-making processes lessens teachers' resistance to

change (Heck and Brandon, 1995).

67

• Solutions orientated and problem solving approaches towards conflict

management are preferred by principals and are seen to work best where the

principal works through consensual and cooperative processes (Henkin, Cistone

and Dee, 2000).

• Increased commitment on the part of teachers to SBM reforms is not matched by

their greater involvement in school democratic processes and does not

necessarily translate to better learning results in schools (Mulford, Kendall and

Kendall, 2003; Wylie, 1999).

• Where teachers' perceptions of school leadership are viewed as positive, they are

less likely to desire increased levels of involvement in school managerial

decision-making and are more likely to focus their involvement on decisions of a

technical nature (Duke and Gansneder 1990).

• Where teachers perceived that they had higher levels of involvement in school s

decision-making they perceived that they had increased levels of job satisfaction

and influence (Rice and Schneider, 1994).

• Principals identified as exemplary "shared governance principals" were not

perceived as being dominating and were more likely to work with others as

equals, and were considered to be trusting and highly collaborative (Blase and

Blase, 1999).

68

Conclusion

In brief, five conclusions can be drawn from the research literature. First, SBM and the

devolution of decision-making responsibility to schools and their local community has

created the need for change in the way schools perceive leadership (Blase and Blase

1999; Dee, Henkin and Pell, 2002; Mulford, Kendall and Kendall; 2003). Second,

research concerning school decision-making highlights the importance of empowerment

and shared decision-making where decisions are made by the people who have to

implement them, and that processes for decision-making are participatory and

democratic (Delaney, 1997; Rhinehart, Short and Johnson 1997). Third, school leaders

who are perceived as effective may have a significant influence regarding school

improvement (Short, 1994; Gonzales and Short 1996). Fourth, the way that teachers

perceive principals, regardless of the qualities of leadership that a principal may have,

influences the way that teachers perceive the principal as an effective leader (Kowalski,

Reitzug, McDaniel and Otto, 1992; Lam 2002; Jantzi and Leithwood 1996). Last,

research concerning leadership styles indicates that transformational and distributive

forms of school leadership play a significant role in the development of effective

schools (Brown, Boyle and Boyle, 1999; Lam, 2002).

These key points and conclusions will be revisited and compared with the results of this

study in chapter five. In the next chapter, the procedures and methods utilised in the

research design, data gathering and data analysis are presented.

69

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers and principals in one specific

region of New Zealand (teaching in primary, contributing and intermediate schools)

perceived school leadership in terms of leadership style and leadership management

strategies. The three research questions selected for the study were as follows:

Question One: What characteristics of leadership do teachers and

principals consider as important in their school leaders?

Question Two: How do teachers perceive their engagement in school decision-making

processes?

Question Three: Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership affected

by factors such as of gender, age, qualifications, type of school, position of

responsibility, experience, teacher leadership aspirations and satisfaction with being a

principal?

This chapter presents the methodology for the study and the method of data collection

and data analysis for the investigative phases that comprise the study. The remainder of

the chapter is organised according to the following headings: seeking permission to

70

conduct the study; research design; defining the population; data gathering instruments

selected for the study; design of data gathering instruments; trialing the data gathering

instruments; administration of the data gathering instruments; data recording and data

analysis; validity; reliability; and, triangulation.

Seeking Permission to Conduct the Study

Permission to conduct this study was granted by the Southern Tasmania Social Sciences

Human Research Ethics Committee and the principals of the schools. In New Zealand,

permission to undertake research in schools is the prerogative of the principal. Formal

written approval was not required from the New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Research Design

The case study method was selected as the most appropriate method to conduct

naturalistic research in one particular school region. Burns (1997:364-365) pointed out .

that a case study is a "bounded system" consisting of "meaningful characteristics of real

life events". The study into how teachers and principals in one specific region of New

Zealand perceive school leadership lends itself to a case study methodology because the

region under study could be considered as a bounded system and the data is to be

gathered in a natural setting. As with other New Zealand school districts, the Otago

region has experienced 14 years of School-Based Management (SBM).

Stake (1995:2) emphasised the importance of setting the parameters of a case study and

he pointed out that it must have "boundedness" and be an "integrated system". For case

71

study "the first criterion should be to maximise what we can learn" and defining the

parameters allows the data gathering to be focussed.

Naturalistic inquiry acknowledges the paradigm that people construct their own meaning

for events that occur in a particular context. According to Crotty (1998:8) the researcher

needs to engage with subjects in the research context and he pointed out "There is no

objective truth waiting for us to discover it. Truth, or meaning, come into existence in

and out of our engagement with the realities in our world". Further Crotty (1998:8)

emphasised the importance of using "non-interfering" data collection strategies because

the researcher needs to allow the subjects to express their own viewpoints in their own

way.

Ruben and Babbie (1997:355) suggested that an advantage of naturalistic research is that

"interaction between data collection and data analysis affords a greater flexibility" for

the researcher than in the structure required of experimental designs.

Burns (1997:364) described the value of the naturalistic approach as being one which

takes place in natural settings rather than contrived situations, and that it is an

appropriate way of gathering data for research questions. Bums argued that the strengths

of a case study approach were seen in the ability to "generate rich subjective data" that

may produce "variables, phenomena, processes and relationships that deserve more

intensive investigation". Tellis (1997:1) proposed that case study is an "ideal

72

methodology" to use for naturalistic enquiry because it allows a "holistic in-depth

investigation".

Conducting research in natural settings enables the use of a range of data gathering

techniques. Denzin and Lincoln (1994:2) contended that naturalistic research is

"multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to subject

matter". Punch (1998:153) suggested that research in a natural setting typically involved

"multiple sources of data and multiple data collection" due to the scope of the natural

setting. An important component in a case study, according to Yin (1994), is the

researcher's ability to identify and manage a variety of evidence sourced from diverse

data collection methods and to use them in ways which might be complementary.

Limitations of case study research are identified by Cohen, Manion and Morrison

(2000:184) as being that "the results may not be generalizable" and that "they are prone

to the problems of observer bias". Stake (1995:12) suggested that case studies are

vulnerable to interpretation "it is not uncommon for case study researchers to make

assertions on a relatively small data base invoking the privilege and responsibility of

interpretation".

Yin (1994:38) proposed that a focus on particular contexts or phases of a case study

could provide opportunities for examination of specific aspects and in so doing "add

significant opportunities for extensive analysis enhancing the insights into the single

case". Describing these phases as units of analysis, Yin (1994:120) indicated that these

73

units of analysis could be used to improve understanding, with the results for each phase

being treated as though they were " but one of several factors in a pattern-matching or

explanation-building analysis at the single case level"

Stake (1995:8) contended that the "real business of a case study is particularisation not

generalisation". However, Issac and Michael (1995:52) argued that a weakness of case

study method is that there is the potential for being a "narrowly focussed observation",

limited in their representativeness and therefore unsuitable for generalisation. Further, a

case study may be vulnerable to "subjective biases" due to the close relationship

between the subject under observation and the researcher. On this basis, Issac and

Michael raise concerns about the interpretation of findings drawn from case studies.

Criticism related to the generalisability of single case studies, according to Punch

(1998:153-154), needs to be taken "seriously". He claimed that researchers need to ask.

whether they would "want to generalise from a particular case study", and they should

consider the possibility that the case may be of significant importance to the extent that

"it deserves study in its own right". Punch also maintained that some cases are so

significantly distinct from others and that this justifies "creating the need to understand

why this case is so different", reinforcing the exploratory nature of a case study.

A case study methodology involving a multi-method data gathering approach was

selected for the study. The Otago region of New Zealand is a clearly defined separate

system within the wider New Zealand education system. A case study method is useful

for research that is exploratory in nature and occurs in a natural setting. A case study

74

design enabled the researcher to explore school leadership as a particular aspect of

SBM. The researcher employed multi-strategies in data gathering which was important

in strengthening data analysis in case study design.

Definition of the Population

A) Survey of Teachers and Survey of Principals

The target population for the case study was all teachers and principals in the Otago

District of New Zealand, in primary, contributing and intermediate schools with an

enrolment of at least 150 students. The target population comprised approximately 413

teachers and 40 principals.

Two features of the target population were important to the research design of the study.

First, it was decided to use only the schools which had a population of 150 students

because schools of this size would have in place a full administrative structure of

principal, deputy principal and teachers. In small schools, due to small staff numbers,

school leadership patterns may be less clearly defined. In larger schools there would be

an increased opportunity to examine school leadership patterns and decision-making

structures.

Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) found that school size was a key factor in influencing

perception of leadership. Second, it was decided to focus on primary, contributing and

intermediate levels because, in contrast to secondary schools, these schools are less

diverse and less complex in structure. Further, it was considered important to diminish

75

as much as possible the influence of subject departments as separate entities within a

school (Busher and Harris, 2000).

In secondary schools the leadership and administration structures are more complex and

leadership practice more diffuse. This decision was taken in the context of

acknowledging findings from research by Mulford et al. (2001) that teachers and

principals in primary schools are more satisfied with school-based management than

secondary teachers and principals.

B) Semi-Structured Follow-up Interviews

It was decided to randomly sample ten percent of teachers who participated in the

survey to participate in a follow-up interview. The random sample was organised

through the principals. Principals in schools participating in the case study were asked to

number their staff in alphabetical order. The researcher compiled a list of sequential .-.,

numbers to use to draw a random sample of teachers for interview. As a teacher's

number was drawn the school was contacted to find out if the teacher identified by the

number participated in the survey and, if so, whether the teacher would agree to

participate in a follow-up interview. Only teachers who participated in the teacher

survey were used in the interview group. This procedure was designed to preserve the

anonymity of the teachers. Interviews were arranged at a time and place agreeable to the

teacher being interviewed.

76

C) Semi-Structured Interviews of Senior Teachers

Four schools from the forty schools in the region were randomly selected for

further data gathering as mini-case studies. As part of the data gathering,

teachers who held the position of senior teacher were invited to participate in a

semi-structured interview. The population of senior teachers in these four

schools is estimated as approximately ten teachers.

Data Gathering Instruments Selected for the Study

The three data gathering instruments selected for this study comprised:

1. A survey of teachers and principals;

2. Semi-structured follow-up interviews of teachers and semi-structured interviews

of senior teacher; and,

3. Document analysis.

A) Survey

As it was considered useful to gather data from all teachers and principals in the

case study Otago region, a survey was selected as the data gathering instrument. A

survey is a research tool that enables the researcher to gather data from a large

population relatively easily and, according to Burns (1997:469), an "obvious one to

adopt" particularly if "the population was scattered geographically". Burns

(1997:109) recognised that an advantage of a survey included the ability to collect

information covering a long duration "in a few minutes" and the opportunity to

"observe patterns in data"; however, Burns identified a disadvantage in that "the

77

attempt to produce comparable information by standard questions can lead to the

obscuring of subtle differences". Burns (1997:473) also argued that surveys, due to

the closed nature of the questions, have the potential to "annoy respondents" who

are possibly unable to find "alternatives suitable", or have to make "responses that

are unsuitable".

Mertens (1998:109) acknowledged that the advantages of surveys included the

ability to collect "detailed information" and that they allow the respondent

time to reflect on the question "before responding". The disadvantages

identified by Mertens included "lower response rates" and the inability to

"probe for in-depth answers".

A survey administered to a large number of teachers and principals was

regarded as an effective way of gathering a broad range of information relating to their

perceptions of school leadership, which would form the basis of the data gathering

process.

B) Interviews

Interviews were used to gather solicited and unsolicited information and were designed

to expand upon and clarify material from the survey. The interview schedule allowed the

opportunity to investigate in some depth the experiences of the interviewee. From the

perspective of Stake (1995:65) an interview enables the researcher to proceed beyond

78

"simple yes and no answers" into areas that provide "description of an episode, a

linkage, an explanation".

According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison, (2000:278) generally accepted practise

dictates that "the kind of information and the means of its acquisition will determine the

choice of response mode". Further to this, they argued that the use of "prompts" and

"probes" make it possible in the semi-structured interview format for the interviewee to

"clarify or qualify their response, thereby addressing richness, depth of response,

comprehensiveness and honesty": Cohen et al. (2000:271) considered that a weakness of

semi-structured interviews was the way that the researcher structured questions in that

"interviewer flexibility in sequencing and wording questions can result in substantially

different responses, thus reducing the comparability of responses".

Burns (1997:330) referred to semi-structured interviews in the context of being "a part

of a structured interview or an unstructured interview". He suggested that they provide

the interviewer with the opportunity to gain "a more valid response from the informants

perception of reality", by having some form of structure. According to Burns, a

difficulty with semi-srtuctured interviews is that "comparability of the information

between informants is difficult to assess and response coding issues will arise"

Polit and Hungler (1997:294) drew attention to a drawback of information collected by

semi-structured interviews as being the problem in deciphering the data gathered. A

range of points of view may provide difficulty when it comes to organising the

79

responses and their relevance to a research question. However, they indicated that

"interviews can enhance the quality of self report-data through probing and ability to

produce additional data through observation".

From Ruben and Babbie's (1997:345) perspective, unstructured interviews aid the

collection of a wider spectrum of information. They contend that in the unstructured

interview situation the interviewer "establishes a general direction for the conversation

and persues specific topics raised by the respondent".

The semi-structured interview enabled the researcher to gather from subjects, who had

participated in the survey, information that could be used to cross check, clarify and

expand upon findings from the survey. The interview of senior teachers enabled the

researcher to gather information from differing perspectives to further clarify and verify

the data gathered from teachers by survey and interview.

C) Document Analysis

Document analysis as a research tool provided the opportunity to examine a

variety of written records. According to Stake (1995:68) documents "can be

key repositories or measures for the case" and also "documents serve as

substitutes for records of activity that the researcher could not observe

directly". Stake contended that "Gathering data by studying documents

follows the same line of thinking as observing or interviewing".

80

Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:161-163) considered documents, such as "official

minutes or records", as "sources of primary data" which are "capable of transmitting a

first-hand account of an event". They also stressed the importance of using "primary

sources" of data where possible due to the fact that secondary sources, such as second

person accounts, "are made up of data that cannot be described as original". However,

the use of primary sources of data attracts criticism "concerned with establishing the

authenticity of the data" and "the accuracy and worth of the data contained therein".

Because a significant amount of data can be sourced from documents it is important that

"they are carefully evaluated so as to attest their worth for the purposes of the particular

study".

Mertens (1998:324) contended that document review allows the researcher 'to get the

necessary background of the situation and insights into the dynamics of everyday

functioning". The task then becomes one of "how to interpret the meaning of such

material".

Document analysis was undertaken relating to school leadership management strategies.

School documents from four randomly selected schools were analysed. The documents

identified for the study are listed as follows: School notice book, curriculum and school

policy planning documentation, staff and syndicate meeting agendas and minute records,

staff and school newsletters and internal memos sent by the principal to staff members.

81

Design of Data Gathering Instruments

A) Survey of Teachers

A survey was designed to gather information about teachers' perceptions of school

leadership. The survey consisted of questions structured as follows: two rating scale

questions of 11 items each, two questions designed as Likert-scales, with one question

containing 26 statements and one question containing nine statements, and nine

questions which sought information about the respondents.

Rating scale questions are useful to find out how respondents' place a value on an

individual item. Comparisons can be made between the way that respondents value

particular items.

Likert-scales provided the researcher with a tool to measure respondents agreement to a

number of statements. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:253-254) asserted that

Likert- scales are "very useful devices for the researcher as they build in a degree of

sensitivity and differentiation of response whilst still generating numbers". However,

they suggested that the researcher needs to acknowledge and "be aware of their

limitations". These limitations include the possibility "that some respondents may be

deliberately falsifying their replies" and the researcher not knowing if the respondent

"wished to add any other comments about the issue under investigation".

Rubin and Babbie (1997:157-158) argued that the use of Likert-scale method enabled

the researcher to construct questions and statements to be used in a supportive way,

82

which "gives the researcher more flexibility in the design of items and can make the

questionnaire more interesting as well". However, Rubin and Babbie pointed out that the

researcher's "structuring of responses could be a disadvantage in the use of closed

questions, such as Likert-scale questions, in that the structuring of responses may

overlook some important responses".

Burns (1997:461) indicated that the advantages of Likert-scale methods of data

collection included the "ease of preparation" and the ability to collect "empirical data

regarding subject responses rather than subjective opinions" and that this increases

validity and reliability. Burns recognised that "this method produces more homogenous

scales and increases the probability that a unitary attitude is being measured". Further,

Burns suggested that a limitation of an ordinal scale is that it "makes possible the

ranking of individuals in terms of the favourableness of their attitude towards a given

object but it does not provide a basis for saying how much more favourable one is than

another".

The eleven items selected for the rating scales were drawn from research by Leithwood

and Aitken (1995) and Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) on effective leadership in schools.

Twenty-six items designed as Likert-scale statements were drawn from research by

Silins (1994), Bishop and Mulford (1996) and Leithwood and Jantzi (1997) concerning

school leadership. The items for the survey were drawn from the following six groups:

• Vision and Goals (eight items)

83

Rank-scale items Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff Likert-scale items Encourages us to develop / review individual professional growth goals consistent with school

goals/priorities Encourages teachers to work towards the same goals Works towards whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals

Gives us a sense of overall purpose Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together

B) School Culture and Climate (eleven items)

Rank-scale items Projecting a positive image to the school community Supporting teachers by being approachable Encouraging a climate of open communication Likert-scale items Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals Symbolises success/accomplishment within out profession Trusts teachers in the school Has the trust of teachers in the school Commands respect from everybody in the school Provides good role models for us to follow Leads by doing rather than telling Facilitates effective communication among staff

C) Intellectual Stimulation (seven items)

Rank-scale items Providing professional development opportunities for teachers Participating actively in curriculum development Likert-scale items Provides for professional development Encourages us to evaluate our own practices Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other Models continual learning in his or her own practice Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning

D) Individualised Support (three items)

Likert-scale items Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work Provides recognition of teachers' work Is aware of my unique needs / expertise

E) Performance Expectations (six items)

84

Rank-scale items Managing change effectively Ensuring effective administrative management Providing recognition for achievement Likert-scale items Holds high expectations for students Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles Has high expectations for us as professionals

F) Structure (two items)

Likert-scale items Provides for our participation in the process of developing school goals Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals

The 11 items in each rating scale were identical but the questions relating to the items

differed. Teachers were asked to rate items in terms of the "importance of the leadership

characteristic" to them as teachers and to rate the item according to the "emphasis" given

to the leadership characteristic "by the leadership in their school".

This was designed to be able to make comparisons between the responses to the two

rating scale questions.

Nine items designed as Likert-scale statements related to decision-making. These

statements consisted of the statements from a Decision-Making Index developed by

Mulford, Kendall, Kendall, Hogan and Lamb (2001). There was a total of 46 items in

the survey.

Nine questions seeking information about the participants related to demographic

variables of Age, Gender, Teaching Level of Responsibility, and Career Aspirations. A

copy of the Survey of Teachers may be found in Appendix D.

85

B) Survey of Principals

A survey was designed to gather information about principals' perceptions of school

leadership. The survey was constructed was constructed with nine items in the form of

rating scales which were identical to the rating scale items used for the survey of

teachers. Two rating scale questions requiring respondents to rank order six areas of

school leadership in terms of the way principals acquire leadership skills. The six areas

of school leadership were identical to the six areas of school leadership used in the

survey of teachers. Nine items were designed to seek information about the participants,

which related to demographic variables of Age, Gender, Qualifications, Length of

Service, Years as a Principal, Satisfaction and Recommendation Rating of School

Principalship. A copy of the Survey of Principals may be found in Appendix E.

C) Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews

In order to clarify and verify responses from the survey approximately 10% of teachers..

who completed the survey were randomly selected for interview. Interview questions

were related to the survey responses and a list of questions may be found in Appendix F.

D) Semi-structured Interviews of Senior Teachers

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers in four randomly selected

schools, who participated in the study, to investigate what characteristics they believed

that teachers valued in school leadership and how they viewed teachers' involvement in

school decision making. A list of questions may be found in Appendix G.

86

Trialing the Data Gathering Instruments

A) Survey

Trialing of the data gathering instruments was conducted in order to ensure clarity.

Mertens (1998:116) stated that "clarity is paramount" and the importance of ensuring as

much as possible that a question is structured so that "everyone is interpreting it in a

similar manner".

Polit and Hungler (1997:367) argued that if there was inadequate preparation related to

data gathering instruments "for obtaining measures" and there is ambiguity in questions

then the results achieved "may reflect this ambiguity and misunderstanding";

furthermore, they contended that due to possible ambiguity the interpretation of

questions may lead to a "distorted measure of the critical variable".

The statements in the Likert-scale and the rating scale questions were trialled in order to

ensure that meaning was clear and to remove as much as possible items that may have

been confusing, and to find out how long participants might take to complete the survey.

A trial of the surveys was conducted with ten teachers and eight principals not involved

in this study. The purpose of the trial was to ensure that questions were clear, able to be

understood and relevant to the teachers and principals. All teachers selected for the trial

were experienced teachers each of whom had held some form of leadership position in a

school. The eight principals selected for the trial had a range of experience ranging from

at least five years to near retirement.

87

As a results of the feedback from the teachers and principals undertaking the trial minor

modifications were made in relation to formatting in order to improve clarity.

B) Interviews

The interview schedules were trialled in order to find out if the questions were clear and

appropriate, and to gauge the time taken for the semi-structured interview. The trial was

conducted with teachers and senior teachers not involved in the study. The participants

were requested to provide feedback regarding clarity, terminology and relevance of the

questions to the study.

As a results of the feedback from the teachers and senior teachers undertaking the trial

minor modifications were made in relation to the time allocated for the interviews.

A copy of the interview schedules may be found in Appendix F (teachers) and Appendix

G (senior teachers).

Administration of the Data gathering Instruments

A) Teachers Survey and Principals Survey

Upon receiving official approval from the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human

Research Ethics Committee, the researcher forwarded to each principal in the selected

sChool region a letter which outlined the purpose and benefits of the study and sought

the principal's participation in the study. The letter to each principal was followed up

88

with a personal phone call. The phone call was undertaken by the researcher in order to

establish a positive relationship with the principal. Once the approval of the school

principal had been obtained the researcher arranged for the delivery of the survey

instruments. Surveys were posted to schools participating in the study, with

accompanying letters and information sheet related to the study.

In order to increase the response rate a follow-up contact with the school was conducted.

After two weeks a reminder letter was sent to the principal of each of the schools to

remind teachers about the survey. The researcher also made contact with principals by

phone to remind them about their survey. It was expected that this would prompt

potential respondents who had not yet completed the survey.

One hundred and fifty seven surveys were returned from teachers giving a response rate

of 51%. Twenty-six surveys were returned from principals giving a response rate of

81%.

B) Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews

Interviews were conducted at the interviewee's school unless the interviewee requested

a different venue, in which case an alternative suitable arrangement was made. All

interviews were audio-taped.

The interview process began with a welcome and an explanation of the interview

process. The audio-tape was then turned on and the teachers were asked a series of

questions from the relevant interview schedule.

89

Data Recording and Data Analysis

The data gathered from the Survey of Teachers and the Survey of Principals was

collated and coded as frequencies and percentages. Post-hoc analysis involved factor

analysis, t-test paired samples discrepant analysis, Mann Whitney U and ICruskall Wallis

one way ANOVA, which was undertaken using the SPSS statistical package. Data

derived from the Likert-scales was scaled as follows, Strongly Agree =5, Agree=4, Not

Sure=3, Disagree =2 and Strongly Disagree=1, and was assumed to be at the interval

level of measurement. Data from the rating-scales was also considered to be at the

interval level of measurement.

In this study, the population and the sample are the same as all teachers and all

principals in the Otago Region were accessed. In these circumstances, the parameters of

the population such as "mu" and "sigma" were used as measures in formulas

representing t-tests and analysis of variance, in order to compare the estimated

populations generated by the demographic variables (Courts, 1996; Berenson and

Levine, 1999).

The responses from the semi-structured follow-up interviews with teachers were audio-

taped and transcribed and the transcripts were analysed and coded into categories of data

related to the responses to the survey questions and to research question one and

research two.

90

The responses to the semi-structured interviews of senior teachers were also audio-taped

and transcribed and the transcripts were analysed and coded into categories of data

related to research questions one and research two.

Document and context analysis was undertaken and categories of data were grouped

according to research question one and research question two.

Validity

An emphasis on the importance of addressing issues of validity in research design is

required. According to Schumacher and McMillan (1993:223), "In order to assure others

that the procedures have validity" we must ensure that the researcher is able "to describe

the validity of the instrument used to collect the data".

Mertens (1998:294) stated that "the researcher needs to be concerned with content

validity" and that "To establish content validity, you need to review the items or tasks in

the measurement instrument". Mertens contended that "Content validity is often

established using content experts to make judgements".

The validity of a survey may be determined in terms of face validity or content validity.

Face validity and content validity are similar according to Issac and Michael (1995:125)

who suggested that the terminology is used interchangeably to indicate whether the

instrument "on the face of it, appears to measure what it claims to measure". The

difference between face validity and content validity according to Schumacher and

91

McMillan is that the "content related evidence is similar to face validity, but face

validity is a less systematic appraisal".

Burns (1997:273) described content validity as the 'sampling adequacy of the content of

a measuring instrument" and as such "is most often determined on the basis of expert

judgement". According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:109) to prove content

validity "the instrument must show that it fairly and comprehensively covers the

domain" and is a "fair representation of the wider issues under investigation".

A panel of experts was used to judge the validity of the survey of teachers and the

survey of principals. The expert panel consisted of three experienced educators; one

university lecturer experienced in research, one teacher experienced in research, and one

principal with experience of at least ten years as a principal. The panel of experts judged

that the validity of the survey of teachers and the validity of the survey of principals was

appropriate.

The internal validity of research design in a case study is determined through

triangulation of data gathering techniques and the rigour of the way the research is

executed by the researcher. External validity in a research design relates to

generalisability of findings, and is not relevant to the exploratory nature of a case study,

which has low external validity (Burns, 1997:383).

92

Reliability / Dependability

The surveys used in this study were seeking the perceptions of teachers and principals.

The survey instruments were not instruments to measure phenomena therefore reliability

was not relevant. For case studies, Burns (1997:381) argued that "it is impossible to

establish reliability in the traditional sense"; what is required in case studies "is more

focused on dependability" and that "ways of establishing reliability involve

triangulation", reporting of possible bias and the ways in which the researcher made

decisions about data.

Triangulation / Cross Validation

Schumacher and McMillan (2001:407) pointed out that internal validity in case study

research design refers to the degree to which "explanations of phenomena match the

• realities of the world". The face validity of the data analysis was strengthened by the use

of multiple data collection instruments, application of the survey, interviews and

document analysis, in approximately the same time period. The findings of the survey

were cross-checked through data gathered from follow-up interviews of a random

sample of teachers who participated in the survey. A random sample of senior teachers

was interviewed to further cross-check the data acquired from the survey of teachers.

Added to these cross-checking strategies was a document analysis of in-school

correspondence. Schumacher and McMillan indicated that multi-method strategies of

data collection "permits triangulation of data across inquiry techniques". Burns

(1997:324) defined triangulation "as the use of two or more methods of data collection

in the same study of human behaviour". Burns (1997:382) suggested that "internal

93

validity is assessed through triangulation, peer judgement and re-checking with

participants".

Mertens (1998:183) argued that "triangulation involves checking information" which

may have been derived from a number of different sources "for consistency of evidence

across sources of data".

Summary

This chapter outlined the methodology used for the study. The design used for the

surveys, semi-structured follow-up interviews of teachers and semi-structured

interviews of senior teachers were also described and discussed in this chapter. As the

design for the study involved self-report data gathered from the survey and interviews,

issues of validity, reliability and triangulation were addressed. The next chapter presents,.

the data gathered for the study.

94

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers and principals in one specific

region of New Zealand (teaching in primary, contributing and intermediate schools)

perceived school leadership in terms of leadership style and leadership management

strategies. The three research questions selected for the study were as follows:

1. What characteristics of leadership do teachers and principals consider as important

in their school leaders?

2. How do teachers perceive their engagement in school decision-making processes?

3. Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership affected by factors

such as of gender, age, qualifications, type of school, position of responsibility,

experience, teacher leadership aspirations and satisfaction with being a principal?

This chapter reports the results of the study. The chapter will be organised according

to each research question.

Research Question One: What characteristics of leadership do teachers and

principals consider as important and as being given emphasis in their school?

A survey was administered to teachers and principals, as Likert-scales and rating scales,

(using a five point scale as "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Not Sure", "Disagree",

"Strongly Disagree") to gather data for research question one in respect of the

characteristics of leadership in schools and the importance and emphasis of leadership

95

characteristics and, in order to clarify and expand upon the survey results, teachers and

senior teachers were interviewed. The results of these surveys and interviews follow.

Characteristics of Leadership in Schools

Teachers were asked to indicate their agreement to statements about leadership

characteristics with the prefix "The school leadership in my school (Principal/Deputy

Principal/Assistant Principal)". Twenty-six Likert-scale statements were employed (see

Appendix D Question 12) related to six categories, namely: vision and goals, school

culture and climate, intellectual stimulation, individualised support, performance

expectations and structure.

Results showed that, for all six categories of leadership, a high number of teachers in

this study responded in agreement to the statements as being indicative of the leadership

in their school. The scores ranged from 92.9% to 57.9% "strongly agree/agree".

The category that received the highest number of teachers in agreement was

"performance expectations", with the two statements receiving a higher response rate of

"strongly agree" than "agree". The mean for the category "performance expectations" is

4.40. Results are shown in Table 1.

96

Table 1: Performance Expectations - Mean = 4.40 (rank order according to agreement, fre / %)

Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Holds high expectations for 89 55 1 0 144 1 10 155 4.50 students (Q7) 57.4 35.5 0.6 0 92.9 0.6 6.5 100 Has the capacity to overcome 66 77 3 2 143 5 8 156 4.29 most obstacles (Q1) . 42.2 49.4 1.9 1.3 91.7 3.2 5.1 100 Has high expectations for us as 80 60 4 0 140 4 106 154 4.40 professionals (QI8) 51.9 39.0 2.6 0 90.9 2.6 _ .5 100 _

Five statements related to the category "intellectual stimulation". Responses indicated a

high number of teachers in agreement that the school leadership "provides for

professional development" (94.2% "strongly agree/agree"). A majority of teachers

indicated agreement to the remaining statements with a range of 85.2% to 65.8% as

"strongly agree/ agree". The mean for the category "intellectual stimulation" is 4.03.

Results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Intellectual Stimulation - Mean = 4.03 (rank order according to agreement, freq / %)

Item SA A D SD SAJA SD/D NS Total Mean. Provides for professional 74 72 4 0 146 4 5 155 4.39 development (Q4) 47.7 46.5 2.6 0 94.2 2.6 3.2 100 Encourages us to evaluate our 53 79 6 0 132 6 17 155 4.15 own practices (Q5) 34.2 51.0 3.8 0 85.2 3.8 11.0 100 Facilitates opportunities for 43 76 19

C,

I

119 19 16 154 3.93 staff to learn from each other 27.9 49.4 12.3 77.3 12.3 10.4 100 (Q8) Models continual learning in his 50 67 11 2 117 13 25 155 3.98 or her own practice (Q21) 32.3 43.2 7.1 1.3 75.5 8.4 16.1 100 Is a source of new ideas for my 43 76 19 0 119 19 16 154 3.69 professional learning (Q17) 19.4 46.4 13.5 0 65.8 . _ 14.8 . _ 19 4 100

Eight statements related to "school culture and climate". Responses indicated that a

majority of teachers agreed with all statements, with a range of 87.7% to 68.2%

"strongly agree/agree". The mean for the category "school culture and climate" is 4.05.

Results are shown in Table 3.

97

Table 3: School Culture and Climate - Mean = 4.05 (rank order according to agreement, freq / %)

Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Shows respect for staff by 73 62 7 3 135 10 9 154 4.27 treating us as professionals 47.4 40.3 4.6 1.9 87.7 6.5 5.8 100 (Q19) Symbolises success 52 77 8 2 129 10 16 155 4.09 /accomplishment within our profession (Q10)

33.5 49.7 5.2 1.3 83.2 6.5 10.3 100

Trusts teachers in the school 65 61 7 4 126 11 19 156 4.13 (Q25) 41.6 39.1 4.5 2.6 80.7 7.1 12.2 100 Has the trust of teachers in 54 68 14 4 122 18 15 155 3.99 the school (Q6) 34.8 43.9 9.0 2.6 78.7 11.6 9.7 100 Commands respect from 54 67 11 5 121 16 18 155 3.99 everybody in the school (Q9) 34.8 43.3 7.1 3.2 78.1 10.3 11.6 100 Provides good role models 47 70 12 3 117 15 23 155 3.94 for us to .follow (Q14) 30.3 45.3 7.7 1.9 75.6 9.6 14.8 100 Facilitates effective 40 67 14 9 107 23 27 157 3.74 communication among staff 25.5 42.7 8.9 5.7 68.2 14.6 17.2 100 (Q23) Leads by doing rather than 41 75 17 4 116 21 1912. 156 3.85 telling (Q2) 26.3 48.1 10.8 2.6 74.4 13.4 2 100 _

Three statements were related to "individualised support". Responses indicated that

most teachers were in agreement with all three items in this category, with a range of

81.3% to 67.9% "strongly agree/ agree". The mean for the category "individualised

support" is 3.90. Results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Individualised Support - Mean = 3.90 (rank order according to agreement, fre / %)

Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Takes my opinion into 44 81 9 3 125 12 17 154 4.00 consideration when initiating actions that affect my work (Q16)

28.7 52.6 5.8 1.9 81.3 7.7 11.0 100

Provides recognition of 37 76 18 3 113 21 22 156 3.81 teachers' work (Q12) 23.7 48.8 11.5 1.9 72.5 13.4 14.1 100 Is aware of my unique needs 45 61 9 4 106 13 37 156 3.86 /expertise (Q24) 28.8 39.1 5.8 2.6 67.9 8.4 23.7 100

Five statements related to "vision and goals". Responses from teachers indicated that

most teachers agreed with all statements, with a range of 89.9% to 57.7% "strongly

98

agree/agree". The mean for the category "vision and goals" is 3.93. Results are shown in

Table 5.

Table 5: Vision and Goals - Mean = 3.93 (rank order according to agreement, freq 1%)

Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Encourages us to develop / 55 84 7

1

0 0

139 7 9 155 4.21 review individual professional growth goals consistent with school goals/priorities (Q20)

35.5 54.2 4.5 89.7 4.5 5.8 100

Encourages teachers to work 42 84 10 0 126 10 19 155 4.02 towards the same goals (Q11) 27.1 54.2 6.5 0 81.3 6.5 12.3 100 Works towards whole staff 40 78 8 3 118 11 26 155 3.93 consensus in establishing priorities for school goals

25.8 50.3 5.2 1.9 76.1 7.1 16.8 100

(Q 15) Gives us a sense of overall 47 70 7 3 117 10 29 156 3.97 purpose (Q22) 30.1 44.9 4.5 1.9 75.0 6.4 18.6 Excites us with visions of what 24 66 23 6 90 29 37 156 3.51 we may be able to accomplish if we work together (Q13)

15.4 42.3 14.8 3.8 57.7 18.6 23.7 100

Two statements were related to structure. Responses indicated that a majority of

teachers agreed with both items in this category, with a range of 90.3% to 83.4%

"strongly agree/ agree". The mean for the category "structure" is 4.00. Results are

shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Structure - Mean = 4.00 (rank order according to agreement, freq / %) Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean

Provides for our participation 38 102 5 140 5 10 155 4.12 in the process of developing school goals (Q3)

24.5 65.8 3,2 0 90.3 3.2 6.5 100

Delegates leadership for 57 73 8

0 0

130 8 18 156 4.15 activities critical for achieving goals (Q26)

36,6 46 . 8 5.1 83.4 5.1 11.5 100

Summary: These results show that high numbers of teachers in this study from the

Otago region of New Zealand, responded in agreement that the leadership characteristics

listed as Likert-scale statements are present in the schools.

99

Importance and Emphasis of Leadership Characteristics

The importance and emphasis given to leadership characteristics in a school was the

focus of two questions (See Appendix D Questions 11 and 12 and Appendix E

Questions 10 and 11). Teachers and principals were asked to rate eleven Likert-scale

items concerning leadership characteristics, on a scale of five being high and one being

low, according to the "importance" of each item to them as a teacher / principal, and

according to how much "emphasis" they considered that the school gave to the

leadership characteristic item. The eleven items related to six areas of leadership

namely: vision and goals, school culture and climate, intellectual stimulation,

individualised support, performance expectations and structure.

Results showed that, in all but two items, principals and teachers ranked items highest in

importance than they ranked the school as giving emphasis to that item.

Three items related to Vision and Goals. Responses indicated that teachers ranked

highest in importance to them as a teacher, "fostering the development of a shared vision

for the school" (Mean = 4.52) and principals ranked highest "working jointly with staff

to accomplish school improvement goals" (Mean = 4.84). Responses regarding the

emphasis that teachers and principals considered was given to those items in the school

were lower for both groups. The item "working jointly with staff to accomplish school

improvement goals" was ranked by teachers as higher in emphasis in the school than

they ranked the item as important to them. Results are shown in Table 7.

100

Table 7: Vision and Goals - Importance I / Emphasis (E) _ Item

UE Teachers Mean No.

Principals Mean No.

Working jointly with staff to I 4.16 157 4.84 25 accomplish school improvement goals E 4.69 155 4.52 25 Fostering the development of a shared

1.-■ 4.52 157 4.72 25

vision for the school 4.10 155 4.56 25 Distributing leadership opportunities

,-I W

4.28 156 4.56 25 amongst staff 4.12 155 4.28 25

Three items related to school culture and climate. Responses indicated that teachers

ranked highest as important to them as a teacher, "encouraging a climate of open

communication" (Mean = 4.82) and principals ranked highest "supporting teachers by

being approachable" (Mean 4.83). Responses regarding the emphasis that teachers and

principals considered was given to those items in the school were lower for both groups.

The item "projecting a positive image to the school community" was ranked by teachers

as higher in emphasis in the school than they ranked the item as important to them.

Results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: School Culture and Climate - Importance (I) / Emphasis (E) Item

LIE Teachers Mean No.

Principals Mean No.

Projecting a positive image to the school I 4.57 157 4.64 25 community E 4.59 155 4.40 25 Supporting teachers by being approachable

1-1 4.80 157 4.83 24

4.22 155 4.68 25 Encouraging a climate of open

)--, W

4.82 156 4.72 25 communication 4.01 155 4.60 25

Two items related to intellectual stimulation. Responses indicated that teachers ranked

highest as important to them as a teacher, "providing professional development

opportunities for teachers" (Mean = 4.54) and principals ranked highest "participating

101

actively in curriculum development" (Mean = 4.64). Responses regarding the emphasis that

teachers and principals considered was given in the school were lower for both groups.

Results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Intellectual Stimulation - Importance (I) / Emphasis (E) Item

LIE Teachers Mean No.

Principals Mean No.

Providing professional development

I-I 4.54 157 4.58 24

opportunities 4.36 155 4.56 25 Participating actively in curriculum

- w

4.42 '155 4.64 25 development 4.08 155 4.16 25

Three items related to performance expectations. Responses indicated that teachers and

principals ranked highest as important to them,"managing change effectively" (Mean =

4.53 and Mean = 4.76 respectively). Responses regarding the emphasis that teachers and

principals considered was given to this item in the school were lower for both groups.

Results are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Performance Expectations - Importance (I) / Emphasis (E) Item

I/E Teachers Mean No.

Principals Mean No.

Managing change effectively 4.53 157 4.76 25 w 3.99 155 4.24 25 Ensuring effective administrative 4.50 157 4.40 25 management

w , 4.26 155 4.20 25

Providing recognition for achievement

- w

4.41 157 4.44 25 3.83 155 4.25 24

Discrepant Analysis

A discrepant analysis was conducted on data derived from the rating scales regarding

the "importance given" to a leadership characteristic by a teacher and "emphasis" that a

teacher considered was given to the leadership ch iaracteristic in their school.

Survey questions 11-1 to 1 1-1 1 concerning "emphasis" given to the leadership

characteristic in your school, were subtracted on a paired basis from questions 10-1 to

102

10-11, concerning "importance" of a leadership characteristic. The resulting

distribution of discrepancy scores was tested for "Goodness of Fit" using the appropriate

Chi-square Test. It was found that there was no statistically significant difference

between the distribution of the discrepancy scores and a normal distribution.

Results from the related t-tests indicate for all items, except paired item three, there is a

statistically significant difference between related "importance" items and "emphasis

given in the school" items, which suggests that, for those items, teachers do not consider

that the school gives emphasis to an item as much as they consider that the item is of

importance to them. This analysis is illustrated in Table 11 and Table 12.

Table 11: Discrepant Analysis - Group Statistics (Importance and Emphasis) Paired Samples. Mean and Standard Deviation

Item Mean N SD Pair 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (I) 4.5161 157 .6174

Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (E) 4.1032 155 .8617 Pair 2 Managing change effectively (I) 4.5355 157 .6474

Managing change effectively (E) 3.9871 155 .8826 Pair 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community (I) 4.5677 157 .6244

Projecting a positive image to the school community (E) 4.5871 155 .6912 Pair 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (I) 4.6903 157 .5649

Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (E) 4.1613 155 .8936 Pair 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable (I) 4.8000 157 .4324

Supporting teachers by being approachable (E) 4.2194 155 1.0210 Pair 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (I) 4.5260 157 .6283

Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (E) 4.3636 155 .7988 Pair 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication (I) 4.8182 156 .4194

Encouraging a climate of open communication (E) 4.0130 155 1.0352 Pair 8 Ensuring effective administrative management (I) 4.6032 157 .6584

Ensuring effective administrative management (E) 4.2645 155 .8685 Pair 9 Providing recognition for achievement (I) 4.4129 157 .7097

Providing recognition for achievement (E) 3.8323 155 1.0117 Pair 10 Participating actively in curriculum development (I) 4.4286 155 .6653

Participating actively in curriculum development (E) 4.0714 155 1.0104 Pair 11 Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (I) 4.2968 156 .7401

Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (E) 4.1161 155 .9463

103

Table 12: Discrepant Analysis - t-test (Importance and Emphasis) Paired Sam les

Item Paired Differences Mean SD

T df Sig.*

Pair 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (I) - Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (E)

.4129 .8958 3.739 154 .000*

Pair 2 Managing change effectively (I) - Managing change effectively (E)

.5484 .9272 7.364 154 .000*

Pair 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community (I) - Projecting a positive image to the school community (E)

-.0194 .84411 -.286 154 .775

Pair 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (I) • Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (E)

.5290 1.0339 8.370 154 .000*

Pair 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable (I) - Supporting teachers by being approachable (E)

.5806 1.0185 7.098 154 .000*

Pair 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (I) - Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (E)

.1623 1.0192 1.877 153 •050*

Pair 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication (I) - Encouraging a climate of open communication (E)

.8052 1.0811 9.158 153 .000*

Pair 8 Ensuring effective administrative management (I) - Ensuring effective administrative management (E)

.2387 1.0573 2.811 154 .006*

Pair 9 Providing recognition for achievement (I) - Providing recognition for achievement (E)

.5806 1.1502 6.285 154 .000*

Pair 10 Participating actively in curriculum development (I) - Participating actively in curriculum development (E)

.3571 1.1007 4.027 153 .000*

Pair 11 Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (I) - Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (E)

.1806 1.1592 1.940 154 •054*

These results show that except for the item "working jointly with staff to accomplish

school improvement goals" and "projecting a positive image to the school community"

that teachers and principals in this study give more importance to leadership

characteristics than they perceive their school giving emphasis to the leadership

characteristic. However, responses in both categories of emphasis and importance were

all above a mean for principals of 4.40 for importance and 4.16 for emphasis, and for

teachers all above a mean of 4.16 for importance and 3.83 for emphasis.

Interviews of Teachers

In order to clarify and expand upon the results of the survey, ten percent of the teachers

were randomly selected for semi-structured follow-up interviews. The questions, which

104

referred to the results of the survey, were forwarded to the teachers prior to the interview

so that they could reflect upon the results in preparation for the interview. Teachers were

asked questions which were drawn from the categories of performance expectations,

intellectual stimulation, school culture and climate, and vision and goals.

Teachers selected for the follow-up semi-structured interviews were asked to respond to two

questions relating to items drawn from the area of performance expectations.

The first question was as follows:

"In the survey, two items in the rating-scale question related to recognition of teaching. Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as teacher" for providing recognition for achievement and managing change effectively (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four) but responses regarding "emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (65.2% and 74.2% for ranks of five and four). The Likert-scale questions is aware of my unique needs / expertise and provides recognition of teachers work had a lower score (67% and 72% Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you explain this result?"

Responses indicated that they felt teachers wanted to be provided with recognition for .

their achievements by leaders who are aware of their individual needs

and strengths. The lower score for the item "is aware of my unique needs / expertise"

may indicate that teachers do not consider that the school leadership satisfactorily

addresses this issue.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"you need to recognise all teachers" "sometimes if you are doing a good job it is never said" "teachers see that recognition and achievement is a really needy thing" "a good leader would recognise your achievements" "we like to be told that we are wanted and needed and good" "schools are busy places and often it is overlooked" "providing recognition for achievement there is always room for improvement"

The second question was as follows:

105

"A comparison of the rank order for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that nearly one third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following item: ensuring effective administrative management. How would you interpret this result?"

Responses from teachers indicated that they felt that, though teachers valued an

effective administration system, they considered that the role of the classroom teacher

was a priority. It was suggested that teachers perceived effective administrative

management as important but as this was somewhat removed from their classroom

priorities may rate this item lower through lack of interest or lack of understanding

about administration. Some typical responses were as follows.

"we are in teaching for the kids.... Administration.., is there to support us" "what happens in the classroom is more important to them" "we are not really interested in administration management" "it is probably is being done well and because its not impacting on them" "administration systems in particular systems can appear to be good" "I believe that there is an effective administration system in place"

Teachers responded to a question from the category of intellectual stimulation as

follows:

"In the survey, one item in the rating-scale question related to instructional leadership. Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as a teacher" for participating actively in curriculum development (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four), but responses regarding"emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (76.1% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for two items concerning is a source of new ideas for my professional learning and excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together, responses were lower (65.9% and 57.7%, Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you interpret this result?"

Responses from teachers indicated that they valued active involvement in curriculum

development and looked to the school for collaborative and inspirational ways of

developing a vision for the school. A lower emphasis score for "participating actively in

curriculum development" and lower responses to the Likert-scale items "is a source of

new ideas for my professional learning and excites us with visions of what we may be

able to accomplish if we work together" may be indicative of the high expectations that

106

teachers have of curriculum development and a feeling that this is not shared by their

school leadership.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"curriculum development is really important" "Its really important to be involved" "some people are good at it and some people are not" "the vision is not presented in a way that enthuses the people to develop further" "It would be better if we had less and were able to make a better job of it" "curriculum stuff gets rated to a lower status"

Teachers were asked to respond to a question relating to items drawn from the area of school

culture and climate as follows:

"In the survey, two items in the rating scale related to leadership characteristics, and responses regarding "importance to me as a teacher" were generally high to items that school leadership was supporting teachers by being approachable and encouraging a climate of open communication (with 98% for ranks of five and four). However, responses to these items were lower regarding "emphasis in the school" (with 72% and 79% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for one item concerning facilitates effective communication among staff, responses were lower (68%, Agree / Strongly Agree)". Why do you think teachers responded this way?

Responses from teachers indicated that they considered these results reflected the

importance that teachers placed on leaders being approachable and the need for leaders to

have open lines of communication. Perhaps this accounts for the lower score for the item

"facilitates effective communication among staff" in that teacher expectations for this item

may be higher than the attention given by the leadership in the school.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"teachers want to be supported by someone being approachable" "supporting the teachers by being approachable and encouraging a climate of open communication" "as a teachers you need to know that you have the support of your principal If you are having

issues" "teachers see open communication and support system as being cooperative" "It is important to feel supported and that you can approach the leadership to sort a problem out"

107

"because they need the support of the team they all have different concerns"

Teachers responded to a question from the category of vision and goals as follows:

"A comparison of the rank order of items for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that over one third of teachers ranked importance to me as a teacher higher than emphasis given in the school for the following two items:fostering the development of a shared vision for the school and working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvements goals. How would you interpret this result?"

Responses from teachers indicated that they felt that it was important to have the

opportunity to jointly develop school improvement goals and a shared vision for the

school. The higher importance but lower emphasis may be indicative of the higher

standards and increasing importance that teachers attach to these deliberative processes.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"we talk at lot about what our vision is and we have input in to it at meetings" "school goals and vision are good as a whole school" "Its that shared vision thing and being aware of it" "what you want is where there are visions and goals set up for the year and that you work as a team to achieve these" "we communicate and we strive for it" "It would be nice to develop that shared vision and have unique characteristics"

Interviews of Senior Teachers

Case studies were conducted in four randomly selected schools to gather data that could

clarify, expand upon and verify the responses of the survey. In the four case study

schools, senior teachers were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews of the senior

teachers focussed on the results of the survey, but in general terms rather than relating to

specific questions from the survey. The semi-structured interview questions were

forwarded to the senior teachers prior to the interview, so that they could reflect upon

108

the questions in preparation for the interview. Senior teachers were asked to give their

opinion from the perception of the teachers that they worked with.

Senior teachers selected for the semi-structured interviews were asked to respond to

questions relating to school leadership. One question was as follows:

"From your experience as a senior teacher, what do you think teachers want from their school leadership?"

Responses from senior teachers indicated that they considered that teachers wanted

support and teachers also wanted reassurance and direction. Further, they were of the

view that teachers wanted assistance to improve the quality of their teaching.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"they want direction in terms of curriculum and in terms of dealing with children" "guidance and direction from those people at the top" "to be supported and given direction" "a school that has clear goals and intentions and people who can help them in their role " experience to improve the quality of their own teaching"

"they want ...direction and guidance freedom ....to experiment with teaching styles"

Senior teachers were then asked the following question:

"How do you perceive school leadership affecting the role of the classroom teacher?"

Responses from senior teachers indicated that they considered teachers perceived school

leadership affecting their role as a classroom teacher. Senior teachers were of the

opinion that teachers felt that the school leadership could promote confidence in

teaching and influence teachers to cope with and manage their classroom.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"leadership can play a huge role in the life of the classroom teacher" "strong leaders make strong schools" "they will be confident in their approach to teaching ...coping ...managing as a teacher" "affects the role of the teachers ...your organisation ...what the school and parents value" "if they know that they are on the right track they will be happy within their role as a teacher"

109

Senior teachers were asked the following question about SBM:

"School-based management has been operating since 1988 in New Zealand. What do you consider to be the positives of school based-management?"

Response from senior teachers indicated that they considered that greater teacher

involvement in the operation of the school was a positive outcome of SBM. Senior

teachers were of the opinion that teachers felt that they had more ownership of

programmes and ownership in what they do and that there was more community

involvement in what goes on in schools.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"positive the community knows a lot more about what goes on in schools" "The community is more involved" "to respond to local needs and the increased parental and local community involvement" "reflective of the communities needs and wants of families and the communities" "more ownership You can have control over what you are doing and why you are doing it" "Ownership of programmes....ownership in general" "teachers have more support are involved in school life at a more personal level"

Senior teachers were also asked the following question about the negatives of SBM:

"What do you consider to be the negatives of school based-management?"

Responses from senior teachers indicated that they considered a negative aspect of SBM

was inequality between schools, which was an outcome of differences between

communities. For some schools, factors associated with SBM were lack of financial

support and access to and availability of relevant expertise.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"it has bought a greater level of inequality to school" "the funding does not take us where we want to go" "nothing is standardised and every body has to make up their own thing" "reinventing the wheel in terms of policies and procedures in terms of school charters" "expertise and knowledge to run an effective school may not be given by the community" "the freedom is there to make decisions and to have input, the money is not"

110

Senior teachers were asked the following about the positives of SBM:

"Do the positives of school-based management outweigh the negatives? Yes / Equal / No (Would you please expand on your response)".

Responses indicated that senior teachers, overall, were positive about SBM, in

particular, greater community involvement. They also felt that community ownership

and the ability to meet local needs were positive aspects of SBM, which outweighed

negative factors.

Some typical responses were as follows:

"Yes ! more control in the hands of the community and that has to be a positive for us" "yes because of flexibility you can meet the needs of your community" "Yes ! more control" "Yes definitely__ ownership you can work through those negatives" "I would have to say no" "No! negative aspects for principals and BOT" "it is equal but ,I guess you have to base it on your personal experience"

Information gathered from interviews with senior teachers confirmed the overall

agreement reflected in responses from teachers and principals to survey items that their

school leadership exhibited characteristics of all six transformational leadership

categories.

Document Analysis

In order to clarify and confirm results of the surveys and interviews, four randomly

selected case studies were conducted in schools. These case studies consisted of semi-

structured interviews of senior teachers and a document analysis. School documents

from these four schools were scrutinised in order to identify evidence of school

111

leadership and school decision-making processes. The school documents gathered for

analysis included the following:

• School notice book

• Curriculum and school policy planning documentation

• Staff and syndicate meeting agendas and minute records

• Staff and school newsletters

• Internal memos sent by the principal to staff members.

An analysis was undertaken and the researcher decided that the two categories that

could provide consistent evidence in document form of school leadership and school

decision-making processes, were minutes of staff meetings and memos from the

principal to staff, and these categories were selected for detailed analysis.

Analysis of the documents showed that a consistent theme in both the staff meeting

records and memos from principals to staff were references to inviting teachers' opinion

and asking for them to provide feedback, for example teachers were invited to share

their opinions related to coordination and planning, invitations to be involved in

leadership responsibility, invitations and opportunities to be involved in school

curriculum committees. In the four case study schools, staff meeting agendas and minute

records showed evidence of a mode of communication employed by the school

leadership which reflected consultative and collaborative ways of working with teachers

in the school. The evidence of consultative language supports responses from teachers in

the survey which ranked as high the importance to them as a teacher and emphasis given

112

in the school to the items of "encouraging a climate of open communication" and

" working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals".

Principals were asked to examine and identify whether or not they considered that there

was a sequence in the way that they acquired and should use leadership skills /

characteristics. Results showed that half of the principals (53.8%) considered that there

was a sequence in the way that principals acquired leadership skills. A little under half

of the principals (46.2%) did not consider that there was a sequence in the way that

principals acquired these skills. However, analysis of responses from principals who

considered that there was a sequence that they used to acquire and use leadership skills,

showed no discernible pattern. This result could have occurred because of the small

number of principals involved in the study.

Summary of Research Question One.

Teachers were asked to indicate their agreement with statements about leadership

characteristics. Results showed that teachers agreed with the items in each category as

being indicative of leadership in their school. The agreement ranged from a mean of

4.40, for the category 'performance expectations', to a mean of 3.90 for the category

'individualised support', "strongly agree/agree".

Teachers and principals were also asked to rate eleven items concerning leadership

characteristics, on a scale of five being high and one being low, according to the

113

"importance" of each item to them as a teacher / principal, and according to how much

"emphasis" they considered that the school gave to the leadership characteristic item.

Results showed that, in all but two items, principals and teachers ranked items highest in

importance than they ranked the school as giving emphasis to that item, but generally

the rankings were high for both importance and emphasis. Responses from follow-up

interviews with teachers and interviews with senior teachers in four case study schools

confirmed these results.

Research Question Two: How do teachers perceive their engagement in school

decision-making processes?

Decision-making was the focus of nine Likert-scale statements. Teachers were asked to

respond to nine statements that were drawn from the Mulford et al. Decision -making

Index (2001). Responses showed agreement that" teachers have adequate opportunity to

participate in the development of the school's goals and plans" and

"teachers are kept well informed about major issues facing the school" (91.0% and

81.2% respectively). Teachers agreed that "decision-making is characterised by

collaborative, cooperative and consultative processes" (67.5%), and that "all members of

the school community have adequate opportunities to participate in decision-making"

(66.9%).

Teachers disagreed that" the values of teaching staff and the goals of management are

often in conflict" and" that the school management restricts the ability of individual

teachers to determine teaching practices and methods" (79.3% and 78.6% respectively)

114

and they disagreed that "the decision-making processes are slow and cumbersome"

(65.6%).

Teacher's responses were inconclusive to two items that " the overall management style

could be described as top down decision-making" and "at this school collegial decision-

making takes precedence over executive management" (36.6%142.9% and 35.7%/30.5%

respectively).

Results are shown in Table 13

115

Table 13: Decision-making Index (in Rank Order for Agreement) Item Freq

% SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total

In general teachers have adequate opportunity to participate in the development of the school's goals & plans

Freq %

50 32.6

90 58.4

6 3.9

1 0.6

140 91.0

7 4.5

7 4.5

154 100

In general teachers are kept well informed about major issues facing the school

Freq %

44 28.6

81 52.6

13 8.4

2 1.3

125 81.2

15 9.7

14 9.1

154 100

Decision-making is characterised by collaborative, cooperative and consultative processes

Freq %

29 18.8

75 48.7

22 14.3

2 1.3

104 67.5

24 15.6

26 16.9

154 100

All members of the school community have adequate opportunities to participate in decision-making

Freq %

37 24.0

66 42.9

14 9.1

2 1.3

103 66.9

16 104

35 22.7

154 100

The overall management style could be described as "Top Down" decision-making

Freq %

19 12.3

39 25.3

46 29.9

20 13.0

58 37.6

66 42.9

30 19.5

154 100

At this school collegial decision-making takes precedence over executive management

Freq %

12 7.8

432 7.9

38 24.7

9 5.8

55 35.7

47 30.5

52 33.8

154 100

The decision-making processes are slow and cumbersome Freq

% 5 3.2

25 16.3

76 49.4

26 16.2

30 19.5

102 65.6

23 14.9

155 100

The school management restricts the ability of individual teachers to determine teaching practices and methods

Freq %

3 1.9

16 10.4

785 0.7

432 7.9

19 12.3

121 78.6

14 9.1

154 100

The values of teaching staff and the goals of management are often in conflict

Freq %

5 3.2

13 8.4

77 50.0

45 29.3

18 11.6

122 79.3

14 9.1

154 100

A Decision-Making Index was calculated. The D-M I contains five items that describe a

positive approach to decision-making and four items that indicate a negative attitude to

decision-making. The negatively loaded items were recoded so that the D-M I when

calculated shows only positive values (Mulford, Kendall, Kendall, Hogan and Lamb,

2001). The mean score for the D-M I were 3.70. Results are shown in Table 14.

116

Table 14 illustrates the distribution of scores of the Decision-making Index. A Chi-

square Goodness of Fit test indicates that there is no statistically significant difference

between this distribution and a normal distribution, at the 0.05 level of confidence.

Table 14:

30 "

20

10 • >, C) 0 C) 0 co C)

. . . . 1.75 225 2.75 325 3.75 425 4.75

2130 250 300 350 400 450 500

Std .Dev =15 7

Mean =3.70

N=1 53

Decision-making Index

Generally, the results of the D-MI indicate that teachers are favourably disposed toward

the decision-making processes in the schools in the Otago Region.

Interviews of Senior Teachers

Senior teachers in the four case study schools were asked to respond to a question about

decision-making. This question was intended to seek the viewpoints that senior teachers

117

had formed from their experience in working with teachers in the school. Senior

teachers were asked their opinion of the way teachers perceived decision-making in the

school: "From your experience how would you describe teachers' involvement in school

decision-making?"

Senior teacher responses indicated that they felt teachers had the opportunity for a high

level of involvement in school decision-making. Some typical responses were as

follows:

"teachers in this school are very involved in school decision-making" "they have the opportunity at our school to be involved in decision-making" "more involvement in school decision-making and the opportunity is there" "teachers' involvement in decision-making has been huge" "Sometimes teachers feel that their view has not been heard" "a lot varies according to the decision that has to be made"

Document Analysis

Analysis of the documents showed that teachers were kept informed by the school

leadership about specific issues related to the school, the opportunity for teachers to

provide input into school developmental planning and collaborative ways of working.

Examples of these included feedback from the school leadership relating to school board

of trustee issues, ongoing opportunities for teacher input into school planning and

leadership establishing cooperative processes. The evidence of teachers' involvement in

school decision-making processes supports responses from teachers in the survey who

strongly agreed / agreed that "in general teachers have opportunity to participate in the

school goals and plans" and "in general teachers are kept well informed about major

issues".

118

Summary of Research Question Two

Results of the Decision-making Index, responses from Senior Teachers, and the results

of the Document Analysis, indicated that teachers in this study perceived themselves as

being involved in decision-making in their school.

Research Question Three: Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school

leadership affected by factors such as of gender, age, qualifications, type of school,

position of responsibility, experience, teacher leadership aspirations and

satisfaction with being a principal?

The Survey of Teachers and the Survey of Principals contained questions which sought

information about the respondents regarding gender, age, qualifications, years of

teaching, type of school, years in current school, years taught or years as a principal,

number of principals worked for, teacher leadership aspirations and satisfaction with

being a principal.

Responses showed most of the teachers are female and hold a Bachelor of Education

degree and most of the principals are male and hold a Diploma in Education. Results are

presented in Tables 15 and 16.

119

Table 15:Gender Teachers and Principals Teachers Principals Freq. % Freq. %

Male 34 21.8 18 69.2 Female 122 78.2 8 30.8 Total 156 100 26 100

Table 16: Oualifications Teachers and Principals Teachers Principals Freq. % Freq. %

Certificate 20 12.7 2 7.7 Diploma 36 22.9 12 46.3 Bachelor 97 61.8 6 . 23.0 Master 4 2.6 6 23.0 Total 157 100 26 100

Information was sought from principals regarding their age. Responses indicated that over two thirds of principals (65.6%) were 46 years or older. Results are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Age of Principals Item Freq % Up to 45 years 9 34.4 46 years — 55 years 11 42.7 55 years and above 6 22.9 Total 26 100.0

There were three types of schools involved in the study, twelve primary (years one to

eight), five intermediate (years seven and eight) and fifteen contributing (years one to

six) schools. Results for a question asking teachers to identify the type of school they

were teaching in showed that teachers were evenly spread between primary schools and

contributing schools (42.9% and 42.9% respectively, with a small number of teachers

from intermediate schools (14.2%). A little over half of the principals were in a

120

contributing school with one third (34.6%) from a primary school. Results are shown in

Table 18.

Table 18: Tvne of school Teachers Principals Freq. % Freq. %

Primary 67 42.9 9 34.6 Contributing 67 42.9 14 53.8 Intermediate 22 14.2 3 11.6 Total 156 100 26 100

Information was sought regarding the level of leadership responsibility of a teacher

responding to the survey as either a deputy principal, assistant principal, senior teacher

or basic scale teacher. More than half the teachers reported being a basic scale teacher

(56.6%). Of the remaining group most were senior teachers (26.6%). Results are shown

in Table 19.

Table 19: Position of Responsibility Item Freq % Deputy Principal 19 12.3 Assistant Principal • 7 4.5 Senior Teacher 41 26.6 Basic Scale Teacher 88 56.6 Total 155 100.0

Information was sought regarding the years the respondent had been in the current

school, the number of principals the teacher had worked for and the total years of

teaching experience. Responses indicated that three quarters of the teachers responding

had been in their current school for three years to eight years (74.6%) and nearly half for

121

less than three years (49.0%). Nearly two-thirds of teachers had worked for four or more

principals (57.9%) and nearly half of teachers had taught for ten years or less (50.3%).

Responses are shown in Tables 20, 21 and 22.

Table 20: Years in Current School (Teachers) Item Freq % Up to 3 years 7 49.0 3 - 8 years 40 25.6 9 — 14 years 20 12.7 15 years or more 20 12.7 Total 157 100.0

Table 21: Number of Principals (Teachers) Item Freq % 1.00 21 13.4 2.00 26 16.6 3.00 19 12.1 4.00 17 10.8 5.00 22 14.0 6.00 52 33.1 Total 157 100.0

Table 22: Years Taught (Teachers) Item Freq % Up to 10 years 79 50.3 11 years — 20 years 34 21.7 20 years or more 44 28.0 Total 157 100.0

Information was sought from principals regarding their years as a principal, how long

they had been in their current school and total years of teaching experience. Responses

showed that over three-quarters of them (77%) had 20 years or less experience. Over

half of the principals (57.7%) had been in their current school for up to seven years and

over two thirds of principals had taught for between 16 to 30 years. Results are shown in

Tables 23 to 25.

122

Table 23: Years as a Principal Item Freq % Up to 10 years 10 38.5 11 years — 20 years 10 38.5 21 years or more 6 23.0 Total 26 100.0

Table 24: Years in Current School (Principal) Item Freq Up to 7 years 15 57.7 8 years — 16 years 8 30.8 17 years or more 3 11.5 Total 26 100.0

Table 25: Years Taught (Principal) Item Freq % Up to 15 years 3 11.5 16 years — 30 years 18 69.2 31 years or more 5 19.3 Total 26 100.0

Information was sought regarding teachers aspirations to become a principal. Eighty

three percent of teachers indicated that they do not aspire to become principals. Results

are shown in Table 26.

Table 26: Aspirations for Princi alshi Item Freq % Yes 26 16.9 No 128 83.1 Total 154 100.0

Information was sought from teachers to provide a reason for their response to the

question related to their aspirations for the principalship. Over two thirds of teachers

(61.7%) believed that they could do the job as principal but becoming a principal was

not part of their career plan. Results are shown in Table 27.

123

Table 27: Reason for Aspiration (Teachers) Item Freq %

I believe that I could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan

82 61.7

I do not believe that I have the capacity to become a principal

18 13.5

No matter how capable I am, I do not believe that I would be appointed to a position as principal

5 3.8

Other reason 28 21

Total 133 100.0

Information was sought regarding respondents' level of satisfaction with being a

principal and if they would recommend the principalship to others. The majority of

principals (88.5% and 84.6% respectively) provided a satisfaction rating of (4) and (5)

on a five point scale and would recommend the principal ship to others. Results are

shown in Tables 28 and 29.

Table 28: Satisfaction with being a Principal Item Freq % Very dissatisfied (1) 0 0.0

(2) 0 0.0 (3) 3 11.5 (4) 14 53.9

Very satisfied (5) 9 34.6 Total 26 100.0

Table 29: Recommend Principalship to others Item Freq % Yes 22 84.6 No 4 15.4 Total 26 100.0

124

A Chi-square Goodness of Fit was used to examine the distribution of the responses of

teachers to the 26 Likert-scale items on the Survey of Teachers. This examination

indicated that the distribution of scores on each of the items was statistically

significantly different from a normal distribution, at the 0.05 level of significance.

Statistical tests used in this situation were non-parametric, namely, Mann Whitney U

and Kruskall Wallace One-way ANOVA. Scoring on these items was reported as

frequencies and means, as the level of measurement at which data was collected was

interval.

The following variables: gender, qualifications, type of school, position of

responsibility, years taught in the current school, years taught before this year, number

of principals worked for and aspiration to be a principal were independent variables. The

dependent variables used in the study were the items in the rating scale questions and

the Likert-scale questions. No significant differences were found using a Mann Whitney

U and Kruskall Wallace ANOVA.

The total scores in the D-MI were used in the above calculations. Each individual item

of the D-MI was examined and no differences were found.

Summary of Research Question Three

Research question three sought information from teachers and principals regarding

gender, years of experience and the type of school that they were currently employed in.

125

Responses showed that the majority of teachers in the survey were female while the

majority of principals were male. Most teachers held a Bachelors degree, males and

females were evenly represented, and the majority of teachers taught in the years one to

six area. On the other hand, the majority of principals held a diploma qualification and

most were in a Contributing school, that is involved in years one to six. The greatest

percentage of teachers were classified as basic scale teachers and they indicated that

they had no aspiration to become principals even though they considered that they could

do the job of a principal. The majority of principals, however, responded with a high

satisfaction rating with being a principal and would recommend the principalship to

others.

Post Hoc Tests: Factor Analysis

The survey contained six conceptual sets, which were as follows: Vision and Goals,

Intellectual Stimulation, School Culture and Climate, Performance Expectations,

Individualised Support and Structure. Each of these conceptual sets was factor analysed

in order to provide evidence of semantic and mathematical congruence.

The major purpose of the factor analysis was to provide evidence for the validity of the

categories of items selected for the survey. The items in the categories of "Vision and

Goals", "Intellectual Stimulation" and "School Culture and Climate" each loaded highly

(from .615 to .884) on the categories and arranging themselves in factors (1+2)

according to whether they were scaled as Likert-scales or ranked scales. In the category

126

"Performance Expectation" the items, whether Likert-scale or ranked-scales, loaded

highly on one factor, as did the categories "Individual Support" and "Structure".

Vision and Goals

Eight items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Vision and Goals". Five of

these items were structured as Likert scales.

Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together Gives us a sense of overall purpose Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals Encourages teachers to work toward the same goals Distributing leadership opportunities among staff

Three items were structured as rating scales. Distributing leadership opportunities among staff Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school

The eight items for Vision and Goals loaded on two factors: one factor contained the

five Likert-scale items, which loaded from .633 to .870 on the factor, and factor two

contained the three ranked scale items which loaded from .627 to .745 on the factor.

Together these eight items accounted for 59.342 percent of the total variance. These

calculations are shown in Table 30a and 30b.

127

Table 30a: Factor One Vision and Goals (Total Variance Explained) Vision and Goals: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.183 39.791 39.791 2 1.564 19.551 59.342

Table 30b: Vision and Goals Component

1 2 Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together

.870

Gives us a sense of overall purpose .858 Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals

.812

Encourages teachers to work toward the same goals .755 Encourages is to develop/review individual professional growth goals consistent with school goals/priorities

.633

Distributing leadership opportunities among staff .745 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals

.730

Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school

.627

Intellectual Stimulation

Seven items were selected to represent a concept namely: " Intellectual Stimulation".

Five of these items were structures as Likert-scales.

Models continual learning in his/her own practice Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other Encourages us to evaluate our own practices Provides for professional development

Two items were structures as rating scales. Providing professional development opportunities Participating actively in curriculum development

The seven items used for Intellectual Stimulation loaded on two factors: one factor

contained the five Likert-scale items which loaded from .643 to .829 on the factor, and

128

factor two contained the two rating scale items which loaded .796 and .815 on the factor.

Together these seven items accounted for 58.903 percent of the total variance. These

calculations are shown in Table 31a and 31b.

Table 31a: Factor Intellectual Stimulation (Total Variance Explained) Intellectual Stimulation: Extraction of Sums of Squared

% of Variance Loadings

Cumulative % Component Total 1 2.779 39.703 39.703 2 1.344 19.200 58.902

Table 31b: Intellectual Stimulation Component

1 2 Models continual learning in his/her own practice .829 Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning .796 Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other

.771

Encourages us to evaluate our own practices .660 Provides for professional development .643 Providing professional development opportunities .815 Participating actively in curriculum development .796

School Culture and Climate

Eleven items were selected to represent a concept namely: "School Culture and

Climate".

Eight of these items were structures as Likert-scales items.

Has the trust of teachers in the school Facilitates effective communication among staff Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals Provides good role models for us to follow Trusts teachers in the school Leads by doing rather than telling Symbolises success/accomplishment within our profession Commands respect from everybody in the school

Three of these items were structured as rating scale items. Encouraging a climate of open communication

129

Supporting teachers by being approachable Projecting a positive image to the school community

The eleven items for used for School Culture and Climate loaded on two factors: one

factor contained the eight Likert-scale items, which loaded from .733 to .884 on the

factor, and factor two contained the three rating scale items which loaded from .615 to

.754 on the factor. Together these eleven items accounted for 61.866 percent of the total

variance. These calculations are shown in Table 32a and 32b.

Table 32a: Factor School Culture and Climate (Total Variance Explained) School Culture and Climate: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings

Cumulative % Component Total % of Variance 1 5.321 48.375 48.375 2 1.484 13.491 61.866

Table 32b: School Culture and Climate Component

1 2 Has the trust of teachers in the school .884 Facilitates effective communication among staff .851 Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals .839 Provides good role models for us to follow .831 Trusts teachers in the school .816 Leads by doing rather than telling .780 Symbolises success/accomplishment within our profession

.735

Commands respect from everybody in the school .733 Encouraging a climate of open communication .754 Supporting teachers by being approachable .710 Projecting a positive image to the school community .615

Performance Expectations

Six items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Performance Expectations".

Three items were structured as Likert-scales

Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles Holds high expectations for students

130

Has high expectations for us as professionals Three items were structured as rating scales.

Providing recognition for achievement Ensuring effective administrative management Managing change effectively

These two sets of items factored together on one factor which loaded from .676 to .760

on the factor. Together these six items accounted for 51.148 percent of the total

variance. These calculations are shown in Table 33a and 33b.

Table 33a: Factor Performance Expectations (Total Variance Explained) Performance Expectations: Extraction of Sums of S uared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.069 51.148 51.148

Table 33b: Performance Expectations Component Providing recognition for achievement .760 Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles .741 Holds high expectations for students .714 Has high expectations for us as professionals .699 Ensuring effective administrative management .698 Managing change effectively .676

Individualised Support

Three items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Individualised Support".

These items were structured as Likert-scales.

Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work Is aware of my unique needs /expertise Provides recognition of teachers work

This set of three items loaded on one factor which loaded from .629 to .857 on the

factor. These three items accounted for 71.866 percent of the total variance. These

calculations are shown in Table 34a and 34b.

131

Table 34a: Factor Individualised Support (Total Variance Explained) Individualised Support: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings

Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 2.156 71.866. 71.866

Table 34b: Individualised Support Component

.857 Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work Is aware of my unique needs /expertise .857 Provides recognition of teachers work .829

Structure

Two items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Structure". These items were

structured as Likert-scales.

Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals Provides for our participation in the process of developing schools goals

This pair of items loaded on one factor which loaded from .860 to .860 on the factor.

These two items accounted for 73.951 percent of the total variance. These calculations

are shown in Table 35a and 35b.

Table 35a: Factor Structure (Total Variance Explained)

Structure: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.479 73.951 73.951

Table 35b: Structure Component Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals .860

.860 Provides for our participation in the process of developing schools goals

132

Summary of Chapter Four

This chapter has presented the results of the teacher survey of school leadership, the

principal survey of school leadership, the semi-structured follow-up interviews of

teachers, and from case studies conducted in four schools, semi-structured interviews of

senior teachers, and a document analysis.

Results have shown prominent support for the school leadership as exhibiting

characteristics of leadership that are congruent with transformational leadership and

engagement in decision-making. In the next chapter results will be discussed,

conclusions drawn and recommendations made.

133

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers and principals in one specific

region of New Zealand, perceived school leadership, in terms of leadership style and

leadership management strategies. The three research questions selected for the study

were as follows:

What characteristics of leadership do teachers and principals consider as important and as being given emphasis in their school?

How do teachers perceive their engagement in school decision-making processes?

Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership affected by factors such as gender, qualifications, type of school, experience, age, aspirations and satisfaction?

This chapter presents a discussion of the results together with recommendations for

further research. The chapter is organised according to the three research questions,

followed by discussion and recommendations.

Importance and Emphasis of Characteristics of Leadership

Research question one sought information from teachers about their level of agreement

to statements about leadership in their school and also sought information from both

teachers and principals about characteristics of leadership that they considered as

important and given emphasis in their schools.

The questions in the surveys were based on six transformational leadership

characteristics drawn from research by Leithwood and Aitken (1995) and Jantzi and

134

Leithwood (1996). These transformational leadership characteristics were performance

expectations, structure, intellectual stimulation, school culture and climate,

individualised support, vision and goals. The high degree of agreement found in the

study signifies that these transformational leadership characteristics are reflected in the

leadership practices experienced by the teachers in the schools in this study.

The category "performance expectations" was rated highest overall by teachers with

responses of 90% and above. These results reflect previous research which shows that

high readiness schools are proactive and school leaders have high expectations of

teachers (Hipp and Huffman, 2000). The category that achieved the lowest overall level

of agreement was "vision and goals".

The importance of the characteristics of school leadership and the emphasis given to

them in a school was the focus of a question for both teachers and principals. Results

showed that in all but one item, principals and teachers ranked items highest in

importance than they ranked the school as giving emphasis to that item. Responses

indicated that teachers ranked highest as important to them as a teacher "encouraging a

climate of open communication" (mean = 4.82) and "supporting teachers by being

approachable" (mean = 4.80), whereas principals ranked highest "supporting teachers by

being approachable" (mean = 4.83) and "working jointly with staff to accomplish school

improvement goals" (mean = 4.84). The results showed that teachers and principals in

this study give more importance to leadership characteristics than they perceive their

school giving emphasis to the leadership characteristic, and there is a high level of

135

agreement between teachers and principals in their responses. A discrepant analysis

showed that, except for one item, there was a statistically significant difference between

paired items of "importance" and "emphasis given in the school" which suggests that,

for those items, teachers do not consider that the school gives emphasis to an item as

much as they consider that the item is of importance to them. It should be noted that

rankings were high for most items. The leadership characteristics perceived by teachers

in this study, who have experienced fourteen years of SBM, seem to reflect the findings

of previous research which suggest that SBM promotes the development of

transformational leadership in schools (Jantzi and Leithwood, 1996; Blase and Blase,

1999).

The high level of agreement from teachers, that the school leadership of the schools in

this study exhibited characteristics relating to a positive school climate suggests that.

these schools would have high levels of collaboration and trust (Blase and Blase, 1999)

and would be likely to foster the development of learning communities (Hipp and

Huffman, 2000; Kowalski et al, 1992).

Teachers reported a high level of agreement that the school leadership "shows respect

for staff by treating us as professionals" (87.7%) and "takes my opinion into

consideration when initating actions that affect my work" (81.3%). These results reflect

results of previous research related to the high value teachers place on interpersonal

skills and school culture (Lam, 2002). Further, the high level of agreement regarding the

leadership characteristics of school leadership indicates that, from the findings of

136

previous research, teachers would perceive their principal as a positive and effective

leader (Jantzi and Leithwood, 1996).

The highly favourable results obtained in this study suggest that SBM and the

devolution of decision-making through the school has been effective. However, in the

experience of the researcher, these results could also reflect the management structure in

place in New Zealand primary, contributing and intermediate schools, which provide a

greater number of positions of responsibility for teachers to occupy. The flexibility for

the school leadership to distribute what was formerly regarded as a senior leadership

position of responsibility into management units has meant that many teachers have had

the opportunity to experience and become involved in a school leadership responsibility,

and to be rewarded for it where previously this may not have been the case. It is also the

experience of the researcher that most classroom (base level) teachers in New Zealand

primary, contributing and intermediate schools have some school responsibilities in

addition to their classroom teaching which has brought them directly into the leadership

and decision-making arena.

It should be noted that the respondents to this survey reflect the ratio of management

positions to basic scale teachers positions. This ratio would be congruent with the ratio

that exists in primary, contributing and intermediate schools throughout New Zealand.

The overall results of this research study reflect previous findings regarding the

significant change that has taken place in New Zealand schools with the introduction of

SBM and the ongoing development of positive partnerships between school

137

professionals (Wylie, 1999). Wylie's research (1999:3) related to the introduction of

SBM in New Zealand, and showed that a considerable investment was made by those

involved at the school level to make SBM a reality. While pressure and stress existed in

schools between those engaged in new roles, partnerships were being developed and

roles and relationships were being forged and broadened to a far greater extent than

what was initially perceived by the designers of the SBM reforms. Wylie (1999:4) also

noted that while the educational reforms were designed to reduce inequalities and to

improve educational opportunities and achievement, SBM did not seem able to achieve

this. On the other hand, research indicates that while school principals support the

consultative management style associated with SBM, the processes are not being seen to

be distributed beyond the principal, and teachers do not perceive themselves to have

involvement in democratic processes (Mulford, Kendall and Kendall, 2003).

Teacher Engagement in Decision-making

Research question two sought information about the way that teachers perceive their

involvement in decision-making in the school. The items concerning decision-making

were drawn from a decision-making Index (D-M I) identified by Mulford et al, (2000).

The D-M I consisted of nine items. The overall scores indicated a general level of

agreement with items. Responses by teachers to seven of these nine items indicated that

according to the D-M I, teachers perceive themselves as being involved in the decision-

making process in the school. Responses to the remaining two items were inconclusive

with responses spread between options.

138

In the experience of the researcher, teachers in New Zealand schools report being part of

the decision-making team and that their voice is heard by those who are required to

make decisions. However, New Zealand research (Wylie, 1999) shows that assessment

and budget allocations were areas where some teachers felt that their input into decision-

making was not sought. Senior teachers and those who aspired to positions of

responsibility were also more likely to feel that they did not have access to the

information they required for their work, or felt left out of the school decision-making

processes. Likewise Wylie felt that teachers who were not properly consulted, or

provided with sufficient information on matters affecting their work, were also more

likely to feel that they were excluded from the school decision-making processes.

The results of the study support research showing that where teachers are involved in

"establishing a shared vision" then shared leadership and participative decision-making

contribute towards overall team effectiveness (Gelzheiser et al, 2001:301). A high level

of agreement was reported by teachers in the study regarding their involvement in the

development of school goals and plans and this supported the contention that where the

school leadership facilitates the focussing of teams on goals, self management is

enhanced (Short, 1994).

The involvement of teachers in decision-making processes and the attentiveness of the

school leadership to the dimensions of school organisation are regarded as important

qualities in school leadership research (Beck and Murphy; 1998; Henkin, Cistone and

Dee, 2000; Dee et al, 2002). There are clear indications in the results of this study that

139

teachers perceived themselves to be involved in decision-making and school

organisation. It is the experience of the researcher, that in New Zealand the introduction

of SBM meant that teachers had to develop partnerships with school leadership teams

and the community.

Previous research indicates that decision-making delegation being dispersed and

distributed beyond the leadership of the school, and support for shared governance,

develops trust and promotes a high degree of collaboration and cooperation in a school

(Blase and Blase, 1999; Klein, 2003). In the experience of the researcher, in the New

Zealand context, the flexibility that the school leadership has to distribute management

units to a number of teachers along with most teachers having responsibilities beyond

their immediate classroom, has developed and supported teacher involvement in school

decision-making. It is the view of the researcher that this may have assisted in the

growth and development of trust, collaboration and cooperation amongst teachers and

the school leadership. This in part could explain the favourable results obtained in this

study where positive partnerships have been formed between the different tiers of school

professionals.

In contrast to the study undertaken by Mulford, Kendall and Kendall (2003) where

results indicated that increased commitment was not matched by involvement in

democratic processes, a significant finding of this research study is that overall teachers

have a greater degree of involvement in school democratic processes. However, this

study is consistent with results of the D-MI research undertaken by Mulford et al (2003)

140

which measured teachers' attitudes to the decision-making processes in primary schools,

and found that where teachers are empowered and involved in areas which are perceived

to be of importance to them, they are likely to be more assured in the way that the

school is organised. Research studies indicate the importance of teachers' involvement

in the democratic processes associated with SBM and school leaders need to ensure that

these processes move beyond the immediate school leadership and are in place

throughout the school. The results of this study confirm earlier New Zealand research

that indicates school professionals have a greater degree of freedom with decision-

making (Wylie, 1999) and confirms international research where changes in governance

structures are supported by effective decision-making practices (Robertson and Briggs,

1998).

Individual Characteristics of Teachers and Principals

Information was sought regarding individual characteristics of teachers and principals so

that comparisons could be made, according to a particular characteristic. Information

was sought from teachers and principals responding to the survey regarding gender, age,

qualifications years of teaching or years as a principal, type of school, years in current

school and the number of principals worked for. As well, teachers were asked to indicate

whether they aspired to be principals or not and to respond to options as a reason for

their opinion. Principals were asked to indicate how satisfied they were in their role and

as to whether they would recommend others to become a principal.

141

Analysis of responses revealed that most teachers were female and had a Bachelor

degree, and most principals were male and had a Diploma qualification. An explanation

for teachers holding predominantly degree qualifications in contrast to principals

holding a diploma qualification may be accounted for by the New Zealand tertiary

institutions, and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, establishing new degree

qualification pathways and phasing the trained teacher certificate qualification (TTC).

Teachers who entered the profession and undertook pre-service teacher training prior to

1990 are more likely to have diploma qualifications. In contrast more recent graduates

are likely to have a Bachelor degree. Degree qualifications are now more accessible in

New Zealand and students in training as well as teachers undertaking professional

development are more likely to aspire to a degree qualification.

Two-thirds of the principals surveyed were 45 years of age or older and the majority

indicated both a high satisfaction rating with being a principal and would recommend

the principalship to others. However, half of the teachers had taught for ten years or less,

nearly two-thirds of the teachers had worked for four or more principals and over three-

quarters of teachers had no aspiration to become a principal. In spite of this, nearly two-

thirds believed that they could do the job of principal but becoming a principal was not

part of their career plan. These responses identify and signal a forthcoming succession

problem for the principalship in that while the majority of principals are over 45 years of

age, highly satisfied with being a principal, and would recommend the principalship to

others, the majority of teachers have no aspiration to follow in their footsteps. This lack

of aspiration to be a principal was further supported by teachers responses from the

142

semi-structured follow-up interviews where they articulated their desire to retain a work

and lifestyle balance and were increasingly aware of the responsibilities, accountabilities

and pressures faced by principals. In interview, teachers expressed the view that the

reason why they entered the profession was to work with children and becoming a

principal would move them further away from classroom work.

Analysis was undertaken in order to compare the populations generated by the

demographic variables. Results showed no significant differences between populations

based on the demographic variables used in this study. Generally, the perception of the

subjects in the study were favourable to very favourable of the leadership of their

schools. This high level of satisfaction could have accounted for the fact that no

significant differences were found between responses of participants according to the

demographic variables.

The highly favourable results regarding school leadership in the Otago region, reported

in this study, may be partly attributed to the way in which teachers involved in the study

have, in a relatively short duration, been exposed to working with a number of different

principals.

The opportunity to observe and work with a variety of different school principals may

have allowed the teachers the opportunity to be mentored, to be exposed to and observe

differing leadership styles and to develop collaborative and interdependent ways of

working together.

143

The findings of this study suggest that, after 14 years of SBM, school leadership is

perceived by teachers and principals in the Otago region as being participative, fostering

decision-making and supporting professional development. The transformational

leadership categories of performance expectations, vision and goals, intellectual

stimulation, school climate and culture, individualised support, and structure were seen

as being indicative of the leadership in their schools.

Recommendations for Future Research

Several recommendations are made regarding issues for future research in the area of

teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership. These recommendations are

as follows:

• Further research be undertaken in other school districts in order to see whether

these results are reflected more widely in the New Zealand education system.

• Responses to questions investigating the ways in which principals acquired

leadership skills were inconclusive. Further research should be undertaken in

order to explore the process by which principals learn leadership skills.

• The decision-making index should be utilised in research projects concerning

school organisation and leadership.

• Research should be undertaken to investigate ways in which teachers can be inspired,

encouraged and supported to consider principal leadership roles as part of their career

aspirations.

144

REFERENCES

Alcorn, N. (1993). Challenges to school leadership in the new climate of New Zealand

Education. The Canadian Administrator, 32 (4), 1-8.

Barnett, K., McCormick, J. and Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in

schools- panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39 (1),

24-35.

Beare, H. (1991). Restructuring school management. The Australian College of

Education: Canberra.

Beck, G. and Murphy, J. (1998). Site-based management and school success:

Untangling the variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (4), 358-385.

Berenson, M.L. and Levine, D.M. (1996). Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and

Applications (7 th Ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Bishop, P.W. and Mulford, W.R. (1996). Empowerment in four Australian primary

schools: They don't really care. International Journal of Educational Reform.

5,193-204.

Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers' perspective.

American Educational Research Journal, 24 (4), 589-610.

Blase, J. and Blase, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance for instructional

improvement: Principals' perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (5),

476-485.

145

Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership teachers' perspectives

on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational

Administration, 38 (2), 130-140.

Brown, D. (1990). Decentralisation and school-based management. East Sussex:

Falmer Press.

Brown, D. (1995). The sabotage of school-based management. The School Administrator, March 8-14.

Brown, M., Boyle, B. and Boyle, T. (1999). Commonalities between perception and

practice in models of school decision-making in secondary schools. School Leadership

and Management, 19(3), 319-330.

Burns, R. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd edition). Sydney: Longman.

Busher, H. and Harris, A. (2000). Subject leadership and school improvement. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective on school-based management. In C.

Ditnmock (Ed.), School-Based Management and School Effectiveness. London:

Routledge.

Cheng, Y. (1994). Locus of control as an indicator of Hong Kong teachers job attitudes

and perceptions of organisational characteristics. Journal of Educational Research, 87

(3), 180-189.

Cohen, C., Marion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th

edition). London: Routledge Falmer.

146

Cranston, N. (2002). School-based management, leaders and leadership: Change and

challenges for principals. ISEA. 30 (1), 1-11.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research — Meaning and perspective in the

research process. Sydney: Allen Urwin.

Courts, F. (1996). Psychological Statistics: An Introduction. Illinois: The Dorsey Press.

David, J. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational

Leadership, 46 (8), 45-53.

David, J. (1995). The who, what and why of site-based management Educational

Leadership, 53 (4), 4-9.

Dee, J., Henkin, A. and Pell, S. (2002). Support for innovation in site-based managed

schools: Developing a climate of change. Educational Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 36-

48.

Delaney, J. (1997). Principal leadership: A primary factor in school-based management

and school improvement. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP

Bulletin, 81, 107-111.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Duke, D. and Gansneder, B. (1990). Teacher empowerment: The view from the

classroom. Educational Policy, 4 (2), 145-161.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.

147

Gelzheiser, L., Meyers, B. and Meyers, J. (2001). Observing leadership roles in shared

decision-making: A preliminary analysis of three teams. Journal of Educational and

Psychological Consultation, 12 (4), 277-312.

Gonzales, E. and Short, P. (1996). The relationship of teachers' empowerment and

principal power bases. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23 (3), 210-216.

Heck, R. and Brandon, P. (1995). Teacher empowerment and the implementation of

school-based reform. Empowerment in Organisation, 3 (4), 10-16.

Henkin, A., Cistone, P and Dee, J (2000). Conflict management strategies of principals

in site-based management schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 142-

153.

Hipp, K. and Huffman J. (2000). How leadership is shared and visions emerge in the

creation of learning communities. In P. Jenlink and T. Kowalski (eds.), Marching Into a

New Millennium: Challenges to Educational Leadership. London: The Scarecrow Press.

Hsieh, C. and Shen, J. (1998). Teachers', principals' and superintendents' conceptions

of leadership. School Leadership and Management, 18 (1), 107-122.

Issac, S. and Michael, W. (1995). Handbook of research and evaluation (3rd edition).

Educational and Industrial Services, San Diego.

Jantzi, D. and Leithwood, K. (1996). Towards and explanation of variation in teachers

perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 32 (4) 512-39.

Kirby, P. and Paradise, L. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding

transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5), 303-311.

148

Klein, J. (2002). Prediction of success for school principal candidates by means of a

decision-making test. Journal of Educational Administration, 2 (3), 118-135.

Kowalski, T., Reitzug, U., McDaniel, P. and Otto, D. (1992). Perceptions of desired

skills for effective principals. Journal of School Leadership, 2, 299-309.

Lam, Y. (2002). Defining the effects of transformational leadership on organisational

learning: A cross-cultural comparison. School Leadership and Management, 22 (4) 439-

452.

Leithwood, K. and Aitken, R. (1995). Making schools smarter — A system of monitoring

school and district progress. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers' perceptions of

principals' leadership: A replication. Journal of Educational Administration, 35 (4),

312-322).

Leonard, L. and Leonard, P. (1999). Reculturing for collaboration and leadership.

Journal of Educational Research, 92 (4), 237-243.

Matranga, M., Homer, M., Hill, G and Peltier, G. (1993). Site—based management: A

survey of Nevada principals. The Clearing House, 67 (1), 60-62.

Mertens, D.M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology — Integrating

diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage

Publications.

149

Mulford, B., Kendall, L. and Kendall, D. (2004). Administrative practice and high

school students' perceptions of their school, teachers and performance. Journal of

Educational Administration, 42 (1), 78-84.

Mulford, B., Kendall, L. and Kendall, D. (2003). Local school management: does it

make a difference? In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (eds.), Learning to Read Critically in

Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage Publications.

Mulford, B., Kendall, K., Kendall, D., Bishop, P. and Hogan, D. (2000). Decision-

making in primary schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 28 (1),

57-76.

Mulford, B., Kendall, K., Kendall, D., Hogan, D. and Lamb, S. (2001). Decision-making

in Australian high schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 29 (3),

49-73.

Mulford, B,. Silins, H., and Leithwood, K. (2004). Leadership for organisational

learning and improved student outcomes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics Press.

Novlan, J. (1998). New Zealand's past and tomorrow's Schools: Reasons, reforms and

results. School Leadership and Management, 18 (1), 7-19.

O'Donoghue, T. and Obrien, S. (1995). Teachers' perceptions of parental involvement

in school decision-making: A Western Australia case study. International Journal of

Educational Reform, 4 (4), 404-414.

Olivia, P. (1993). Supervision for today's schools. New York: Longman.

Osterman, K. and Crow, G. (1997). New urban principals role conceptions at the entry

level. Urban Education, 32 (3), 373-394.

150

Philips, D. (2000). Curriculum and assessment policy in New Zealand: Ten years of

reforms. Education Review, 52 (2), 143-154

Polit, D.F. and Hungler, B.P. (1997). Essentials of nursing research: Methods,

appraisals and utilisation. Human analysis incorporated Saratoga.

Punch, K.F. (1998). Introduction to social research — Quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.

Reitzug, Ulrich. (1997). Images of principal instructional leadership: From supervision

to collaborative inquiry, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12 (4), 324-354.

Rhinehart, J., Short, P. and Johnson, P. (1997). Empowerment and conflict at site-based

and non-site based sites in the United States. International Studies in Educational

Administration, 25 (1), 76-87.

Rice, E. and Schneider, G. (1994). A decade of empowerment: An empirical analysis of

teacher involvement in decision-making, 1980-1991. Journal of Educational

Administration, 32 (1), 43-59.

Robertson, J. (1991). Developing educational leadership. Masters Thesis, University of

Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Robertson, P. and Briggs, K. (1998). Improving schools through school-based

management: An examination of the process of change. School Effectiveness and school

Improvement, 9 (1), 28-57

Rubin, A. and Babbie, E.R. (1997). Research methods for social work. Brooks-Cole,

Pacific Grove.

151

Schumaker, S. and McMillan, J. (2001). Research in education (5th edition). Harper

Collins.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Why should we seek substitutes for leadership. Educational

Leadership, 49 (5), 41-45.

Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it

important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. and Starratt, J. (1993). Supervision, a redefinition. New York:

Longman.

Short, P. (1994). School management through self-managing teams: Leaders behaviour

in developing-managing works groups in schools. Education, 14 (4), 493-503.

Silins, H. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership,

and school improvements outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5

(3), 272-298.

Southworth, G. (1999). Primary school leadership in England: Policy, practice and

theory. School Leadership and Management, 19 (1), 49-65.

Smylie, M., Lazarus, V. and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of

school-based participative decision-making. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 18 (3), 181-198.

Snook, I. (1989). Education reform in New Zealand: What is going on? Paper presented

at the NZARE Conference, Trentham, November.

152

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications.

Task Force to Review Educational Administration (1998). Administering for Excellence,

Wellington.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3

(3), 1-16.

Townsend, T. (1994). Community involvement: The hidden factor in devolution. The

International Journal of Educational Management, 8 (4), 24-30.

Van Meter, E. (1994). Implementing school-based decision making in Kentucky.

NASSP Bulletin, September, 61-71.

Wallace, M. (2002). Modelling distributed leadership and management effectiveness:

Primary school senior management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness

and School Improvement, 13 (2), 163-186.

Williams, R., Harold, B., Robertson, J. and Southworth, G. (1997). Sweeping

decentralisation of educational decision-making authority. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (8),

626-631.

Wylie, C. (1994). Self-managing schools in New Zealand: The fifth year. New Zealand

Council for Educational Research, Wellington.

Wylie, C. (1997). At the centre of the web. New Zealand Council for Educational

Research, Wellington.

153

Wylie, C/ (1999). Ten years on: How schools view educational reform. New Zealand

Council for Educational Research. Wellington.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research design methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publications.

154

APPENDIX A

Letter to School Principals Seeking Permission to Undertake the Study

155

University of Tasmania

Mr Darrell Latham

The Principal Alexandra Primary School Ventry Street Alexandra

99 Ventry St,Alexandra darrell. coec @ xtra.co. nz 18 August 2003

Dear Principal My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford.

As part of this research, I am conducting a survey of teachers in schools in the Otago region in order to find out how teachers perceive school leadership characteristics and school management practices. Teachers from U4 and above schools are invited to participate in the survey.

With the development of School Based Management in New Zealand schools the focus has been on improving schools. The results of this research will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.

I am seeking your approval to approach teachers to invite them to participate in the survey. A semi-structured follow-up interview will be conducted with a number of teachers randomly selected from teachers completing the survey and agreeing to participate in an interview. All information provided will be CONFIDENTIAL and individual teachers will not be identified in any way.

A summary of the survey and semi-structured interview results will be provided to schools which participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not identifiable. Results of the survey will be reported as group data only.

If you approve, teachers will be asked to complete a survey of approximately 13 questions taking about 15 minutes to complete and, if selected, an interview of approximately 10 minutes.

This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). (Gino.Dalpont@utas.edu.au and Amanda.McAully@utas.edu.au)

Thank you

Darrell Latham Investigator

156

APPENDIX B

Information Sheet for Survey Participants: Teachers

Information Sheet for Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews: Teachers

Statement of Informed Consent: Teachers

Information Sheet for Survey Participants: Principals

157

University of Tasmania

Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

INFORMATION SHEET FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS: TEACHERS Dear Teacher My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford. As part of this research, I am conducting a survey of teachers in schools in the Otago region. Teachers and principals from U4 and above schools are invited to participate in the survey. As a teacher your opinion of school leadership is very important. Results of the survey will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.

If you choose to participate you will be asked to complete a survey of approximately thirteen questions. It is anticipated that the survey should take approximately ten minutes of your time to complete. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided. A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools that participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not identifiable. Results of the survey will be reported as group data only.

It is planned to conduct follow-up interviews with approximately ten percent of the teachers who completed the survey in order to clarify and expand upon aspects of results obtained from the survey. You may be selected by random number to participate in an interview.

Principals in schools participating in the case study will be asked to number their staff in alphabetical order. The researcher will compile a list of sequential numbers to use to draw a random sample of teachers for interview. As a teacher number is drawn the school will be contacted to find out if the teacher identified by the number participated in the survey and if so whether the teacher would agree to participate in a follow-up interview. Only teachers who have participated in the teacher survey will be asked to participate in an interview. This procedure is designed to preserve the anonymity of the teachers. Interviews will be arranged at a time and place agreeable to the teacher being interviewed.

Under the New Zealand system of devolution of authority, the principal is responsible for approving research undertaken in the school. The principals of each school in the Otago region included in the study have given permission for me to approach teachers in their school to invite participation.

This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). (Gino.Dalpont@utas.edu.au and Amanda.McAully@utas.edu.au ) Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham ( 64 3 448 8449). If

you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Prof. Bill Mulford (61 3 62262532)

Thank you Darrell Latham —Investigator

158

University of Tasmania Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

INFORMATION SHEET FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

Dear Teacher My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford. As part of this research, I have conducted a survey of teachers in schools in the Otago region. In order to clarify and expand upon the results of the survey I am conducting interviews with teachers who have been randomly selected from the teachers who participated in the survey. Teachers from U4 and above schools participated in the survey. As a teacher your opinion of school leadership is very important. Results of the survey will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.

If you choose to participate you will be asked if you have completed the survey of teachers and if you are willing to participate in a semi-structured follow-up interview lasting approximately fifteen minutes. Interviews will be arranged at a time and place agreeable to the teacher being interviewed. Interviews will be audio-taped. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.

Principals in schools participating in the case study were asked to number their staff in alphabetical order. The researcher compiled a list of sequential numbers to use to draw a random sample of teachers for interview. As a teacher number was drawn the school was contacted to find out if the teacher identified by the number participated in the survey and if so whether the teacher would agree to participate in a follow-up interview. Only teachers who have participated in the teacher survey have been asked to participate in an interview. This procedure was designed to preserve the anonymity of the teachers who undertook the survey.

A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools that participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not be identifiable. Results of the survey and semi-structured interviews will be reported as group data only.

Under the New Zealand system of devolution of authority, the principal is responsible for approving research undertaken in the school. The principals of each school in the Otago region included in the study have given permission for me to approach teachers in their school, to invite participation.

This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). (Gino.Dalpont@utas.edu.au and Amanda.McAully@utas.edu.au). Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham (64 3 448 8449). If you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Prof. Bill Mulford (61 362262532) Thank you

Darrell Latham - Investigator

159

University of Tasmania

Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT - TEACHERS

Please read the following statement and sign at the bottom, if you are prepared to be involved in the study. You will be given copies of the information sheet and statement of informed consent to keep.

1. I have read and understood the 'Information Sheet' for this study.

2. I understand that the study involves the following procedures: completion of a survey and participation in a semi-structured follow-up interview lasting approximately 15 minutes, and the nature of my participation involves answering questions verbally that will be audio-taped.

3. It is understood that it is possible that some participants may experience embarrassment during the interview. Every effort will be made to minimise this and if any discomfort should arise during the interview, participants will be invited to cease the activity.

4. I understand that all research data will be treated as confidential and that I will not be identified In any way, and I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided that I cannot be identified as a subject.

5. Any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

6. My participation is entirely voluntary and I may terminate my involvement at any time without prejudice.

7. I would like to receive a copy of the summary of the results of the survey and semi-structured interviews obtained from this study. Yes/No "If yes," please provide address for forwarding summary of results.

Name of subject

Signature of subject Date

A statement by the investigator I have explained this project and the implications of participation in it to this volunteer and I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the implications of participation.

Name of investigator

Signature of investigator Date Please send copy of survey results and semi-structured interviews to: Address of

160

University of Tasmania

Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Professor Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

INFORMATION SHEET FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS: PRINCIPALS

Dear Principal My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Professor Bill Mulford.

As part of this research, I am conducting a survey of teachers and principals in schools in the Otago region. Teachers and principals from U4 and above schools are invited to participate in the survey. As a principal your opinion of school leadership is very important. Results of the survey will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.

If you choose to participate you will be asked to complete a survey of approximately thirteen questions. It is anticipated that the survey should take approximately ten minutes of your time to complete. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.

A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools, which participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not identifiable. Results of the survey will be reported as group data only.

This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). (Gino.Dalpont@utas.edu.au and Amanda.McAully @utas.edu .au)

Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham ( 03 448 8449). If you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Professor Bill Mulford (61 3 62 262532)

Thank you

Darrell Latham Investigator

161

APPENDIX C

Information Sheet for Semi-structured Interviews: Senior Teachers

Statement of Informed Consent: Senior Teachers

162

University of Tasmania

Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

INFORMATION SHEET FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS (SENIOR TEACHER)

Dear Teacher My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford.

As part of this research, I have conducted a survey of teachers and principals in schools in the Otago region. Teachers and principals from U4 and above schools were invited to participate in the survey. Results of the survey would be useful for the improvement of school organisation.

I am conducting interviews with senior teachers from four randomly selected schools in the Otago region in order to expand upon the data gathered from the teacher survey. As a senior teacher in the school your opinion of the way that teachers view school leadership is very important.

If you choose to participate you will be asked to participate in a semi-structured interview lasting approximately fifteen minutes. Interviews will be audio-taped. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.

A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools that participate in the study, but results derived from any particular school will not be identifiable. Results of the survey and semi-structured interviews will be reported as group data only.

Under the New Zealand system of devolution of authority, the principal is responsible for approving research undertaken in the school. The principals of each school in the Otago region included in the study have given permission for me to approach teachers in their school to invite participation.

This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). (Gino.Dalpont@utas.edu.au and Amanda.McAully@utas.edu.au )

Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham (64 3 448 8449). If you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Prof. Bill Mulford (61 3 62262523) Thank you

Darrell Latham Investigator

163

University of Tasmania Title of project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT - SENIOR TEACHERS

Please read the following statement and sign at the bottom, if you are prepared to be involved in the study. You will be given copies of the information sheet and statement of informed consent to keep.

1. I have read and understood the 'Information Sheet' for this study.

2. I understand that the study involves the following procedures: Participation in a semi-structured interview lasting approximately fifteen minutes and the nature of my participation involves answering questions verbally that will be audio-taped.

3. It is understood that it is possible that some participants may experience embarrassment during the interview. Every effort will be made to minimise this and if any discomfort should arise during the interview, participants will be invited to cease the activity.

4. I understand that all research data will be treated as confidential and that I will not be identified in any way, and I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided that I cannot be identified as a subject. I understand that data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. I understand that participation is voluntary. I understand that if you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.

5. Any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.

6. My participation is entirely voluntary and I may terminate my involvement at any time without prejudice.

7. I would like to receive a copy of the summary of the results of the survey and semi-structured interviews obtained from this study. Yes/No "If yes," please provide address for forwarding summary of results.

Name of subject

Signature of subject Date

A statement by the investigator I have explained this project and the implications of participation in it to this volunteer and I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the implications of participation. Name of investigator

Signature of investigator Date Please send copy of survey results and semi-structured interviews to:-Address of

164

APPENDIX D

Teacher Survey of School leadership

165

TEACHER SURVEY OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

As part of a doctorate in education research study for the University of Tasmania, I am conducting a survey of teachers in the Otago region in New Zealand regarding school leadership. Teachers in schools (Primary, Contributing and Intermediate schools of one hundred and fifty students and above) are being surveyed in order to find out how teachers perceive school leadership characteristics and school management practices in their school.

I would like you to take some time to complete the following survey, as your opinion as a practising teacher is very important. Results of this survey will be very helpful for improving school organisation and development.

Responses will be kept strictly confidential. Your name is not required and your identity will not be known. Results will be reported as group data only and your school will not be identified in any way.

A summary of the survey results will be forwarded to the principal of the school after the research study has been completed.

The survey should take ten minutes to complete. Please return the survey in the stamp-addressed envelope provided. General follow-up reminder phone calls may be made to your school to increase response rate if needed, but it would not be known who has completed the survey.

Your involvement in this survey is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance. Darrell Latham

Please answer the first nine questions, which seek general information about teachers completing the survey.

Q. 1 Gender: Male Female (please circle)

Q. 2 What is your highest qualification'?

Q. 3 Type of school: Full Primary School --- Contributing School --- Intermediate School

(please circle) Q. 4 Position of responsibility (please circle)

Deputy Principal --- Assistant Principal --- Senior Teacher/Management Unit Holder Q. 5 Years in your current school before this year: years

Q. 6 How many years have you taught before this year? years

Q. 7 Number of principals you have worked for including your current principal 1 2 3 4 5 more than 5 (please circle)

166

Q. 8 Do you aspire to become a principal sometime in the future? Yes / No (please circle)

Q. 9 If No - please TICK ONE of the following options as a reason for your opinion

I believe that I could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan I do not believe that I have the capacity to become a principal

No matter how capable I am, I do not believe that I would be appointed to a position as principal Other, please specify

Q.10 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each statement on a scale of five being high and one being low, according to the importance to you as a teacher of the leadership characteristic. Please circle the appropriate number.

Leadership Characteristic High Low Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1

2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 1 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1 9 Providing recognition for achievement 5 4 3 2 1 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1

Q.11 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each item on a scale of five being high and one being low according to the emphasis given by leadership in your school to the leadership characteristic. Please circle appropriate number

Leadership Characteristic High Low 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1 2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 1 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 1 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1 9 Providing reco_gnition for achievement 5 4 3 2 1 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 1 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1

167

Q.12 The following statements refer to aspects of school leadership in your school. Please indicate your level of agreement to each statement by placing a tick in the appropriate box:

Strongly Disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Not Sure (NS) Agree (A) Strongly Agree (SA)

Statement: The school leadership in my school (Principal/Deputy Principal/Assistant Principal)

SD D NS A SA

1 Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles 2 Leads by doing rather than by telling 3 Provides for our participation in the process of developing school goals 4 Provides for professional development 5 Encourages us to evaluate our practices 6 Has the trust of teachers in the school 7 1-Ilds hi h expectations for students 8 Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other 9 Commands respect from everybody in the school 10 Symbolises success/accomplishment within our profession 11 Encourages teachers to work towards the same goals 12 Provides recognition of teachers' work 13 Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together 14 Provides good models for us to follow 15 Works towards whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals 16 Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work 17 Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning 18 Has high expectations for us as professionals 19 Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals 20 Encourages us to develop/review individual professional growth goals

consistent with school goals/priorities 21 Models continual learning in his or her own practice 22 Gives us a sense of overall purpose 23 Facilitates effective communication among staff 24 Is aware of my unique needs/expertise 25 Trusts teachers in the school 26 Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals

168

Q.13 The Following statements refer to aspects of school decision-making. Please indicate your level of agreement to each statement, for your school, by placing a tick in the

appropriate box:

Strongly Disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Not Sure (NS) Agree (A) Strongly Agree (SA)

Statement SD D NS A SA 1 In general teachers are kept well informed about major issues facing the

school 2 In general teachers have adequate opportunity to participate in the

development of the school's goals & plans 3 All members of the school community have adequate opportunities to

participate in decision-making 4 The overall management style could de described as "Top Down" decision-

making 5 Decision-making is characterised by collaborative, cooperative and

consultative processes 6 The school management restricts the ability of individual teachers to

determine teaching practices and methods 7 At this school collegial decision-making takes precedence over executive

management .

8 The decision-making processes are slow and cumbersome 9 The values of teaching staff and the goals of management are often in

conflict

Thank you. Darrell Latham

169

APPENDIX E

Principal Survey of School Leadership

170

PRINCIPAL SURVEY OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

As part of a doctorate in education research study for the University of Tasmania, I am conducting a survey of principals in the Otago region in New Zealand regarding school leadership. Principals of schools (Primary, Contributing and Intermediate schools of one hundred and fifty students and above) are being surveyed in order to find out how principals perceive school leadership characteristics and school management practices in their school.

I would like you to take some time to complete the following survey as your opinion as a principal is very important. Results of this survey will be very helpful for improving school organisation and development.

Responses will be kept strictly confidential. Your name is not required and your identity will not be known. Results will be reported as group data only and your school will not be identified in any way.

A summary of the survey results will be forwarded to the school after the research study has been completed.

The survey should take ten minutes to complete. Please return the survey in the stamp-addressed envelope provided. General follow-up reminder phone calls may be made to your school to increase response rate if needed, but it would not be known who has completed the survey. Your involvement in this survey is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance. Darrell Latham

Please answer the first nine questions, which seek general information about principals completing the survey.

Q. 1 Gender: Male Female (please circle)

Q. 2 Age: Years

Q. 3 What is your highest qualification?

Q. 4 Type of school: Full Primary School Contributing School Intermediate School (please circle)

Q. 5 Years as a principal before this year years

Q. 6 Years in your current school before this year years

Q. 7 Years of teaching experience before this year years

Q. 8 How satisfied are you with being a principal? please circle

very satisfied 5

very dissatisfied 4 3 2

Q. 9 Would you recommend others to become a principal? Yes / No (please circle)

171

Q. 10 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each statement on a scale of five being high and one being low, according to the importance to you as a principal of the leadership characteristic. Please the circle appropriate number.

Leadership Characteristic High Low. 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1 2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 1 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1 9 Providing recognition for achievement 5 4 3 2 1 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 1 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1

Q. 11 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each item on a scale of five being high and one being low according to the emphasis given by you to the leadership characteristic in your leadership of the school. Please circle appropriate number.

Leadership Characteristic High Low. 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1 2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 1 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 1 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1

Providing recognition for achievement 5 4 3 2 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 1 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1

172

Q. 12 The following randomly listed areas concern clusters of leadership skills/characteristics. Do you consider that there is a sequence in the way that principals acquire these skills? Yes / No (please circle)

If Yes - Please identify a sequence in the way that principals should acquire leadership skills/characteristics, by numbering 1 - 6 for the list below.

Vision and goals: The extent to which the principal works towards whole staff consensus in establishing school priorities and communicates these priorities and goals to students and staff, giving a sense of overall purpose. Culture: The extent to which the principal promotes an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff, sets a respectful tone for interaction with students, and demonstrates a willingness to change his or her practices in the light of new understandings. Structure: The extent to which the principal establishes a school structure that promotes participative decision making, supports delegation and distributive leadership, and encourages teacher autonomy for making decisions. Intellectual Stimulation: The extent to which the principal encourages staff to reflect on what they are trying to achieve with students and how they are doing it, facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other, and models continual learning in his or her own practice. Individual Support: The extent to which the principal provides moral support, shows appreciation for the work of individual staff, and takes their opinion into account when making decisions. Performance Expectations: The extent to which the principal has high expectations for teachers and for students and expects staff to be effective and innovative.

Q. 13 The following randomly listed areas concern clusters of leadership skills/characteristics. Do you consider that there is a sequence in the way that principals use these skills? Yes / No (please circle)

If Yes - Please identify a sequence in the way that principals should use leadership skills/characteristics, by numbering 1 - 6 for the list below.

Vision and goals: The extent to which the principal works towards whole staff consensus in establishing school priorities and communicates theses priorities and goals to students and staff, giving a sense of overall purpose. Culture: The extent to which the principal promotes an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff, sets a respectful tone for interaction with students, and demonstrates a willingness to change his or her practices in the light of new understandings. Structure: The extent to which the principal establishes a school structure that promotes participative decision making, supports delegation and distributive leadership, and encourages teacher autonomy for making decisions. Intellectual Stimulation: The extent to which the principal encourages staff to reflect on what they are trying to achieve with students and how they are doing it, facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other, and models continual learning in his or her own practice. Individual Support: The extent to which the principal provides moral support, shows appreciation for the work of individual staff, and takes their opinion into account when making decisions. Performance Expectations: The extent to which the principal has high expectations for teachers and for students and expects staff to be effective and innovative.

Thank You Darrell Latham

173

APPENDIX F

Semi-Structured Follow-Up Interview Schedule: Teachers

174

Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

SEMI- STRUCTURED FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - TEACHERS

Preparation As a participant in the survey of teachers, you have been selected to undertake a brief interview. The purpose of the interview is to seek your opinion concerning the results of the survey in order to provide a clearer understanding and to clarify particular issues. Please read the following questions before we start the interview so that you have some time to reflect on your response.

Questions Items representing characteristics of school leadership were investigated to determine how teachers ranked these items in terms of IMPORTANCE to them as a teacher, and also the EMPHASIS given to these items by their school leadership. Likert-scale items in the survey related to aspects of school leadership in their school.

Communication Skills Ql: In the survey, two items in the rating scale related to leadership characteristics, and responses

regarding "importance to me as a teacher" were generally high to items that school leadership was "supporting teachers by being approachable" and "encouraging a climate of open communication" (with 98% for ranks of five and four). However, responses to these items were lower regarding "emphasis in the school" (with 72% and 79% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for one item concerning "facilitates effective communication among staff', responses were lower (68%, Agree / Strongly Agree). Why do you think teachers responded this way?

Recognition of Teaching Q2: In the survey, two items in the rating-scale question related to recognition of teaching Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as teacher" for

"providing recognition for achievement" and "managing change effectively" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four) but responses regarding " emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (65.2% and 74.2% for ranks of five and four). The Likert-scale questions "is aware of my unique needs / expertise" and "provides recognition of teachers work" had a lower score (67% and 72% Agree! Strongly Agree). How would you explain this result?

175

Instructional leadership Q3: In the survey, one item in the rating-scale question related to instructional leadership. Most

teachers responses were high for "importance to me as a teacher" for "participating actively in curriculum development" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four), but responses regarding"emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (76.1% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for two items concerning "is a source of new ideas for my professional learning" and "excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together", responses were lower (65.9% and 57.7%, Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you interpret this result?

School Goals and Vision Q4: A comparison of the rank order of items for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that over

one third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis givenin the school" for the following two items: "fostering the development of a shared vision for the school" "working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvements goals". How would you interpret this result?

Administrative Management Q5: A comparison of the rank order for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that nearly one third

of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following item. "ensuring effective administrative management" How would you interpret this result?

Q6: Over 83% of teachers responded "no" to the question "do you aspire to become a school Principal ?". Of the people who answered "no" to this question nearly two thirds gave as a reason "I believe that I could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan." How would you explain this result?

Before we conclude, is there anything further that you would like to add to any of the questions or are there any additional comments that you wish to make?

176

APPENDIX G

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule: Senior Teachers

,

177

Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham

SEMI- STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - SENIOR TEACHERS

Preparation You have been selected to undertake a brief interview. The purpose of the interview is to investigate the characteristics that you believe teachers' value in school leadership. If you have not received the interview questions, please read the following questions before we start the interview so that you have some time to reflect on your response.

Questions

Ql: From your experience as a senior teacher, what do you think teachers want from their school leadership?

Q2: How do you perceive school leadership affecting the role of the classroom teacher?

Q3: From your experience how would you describe teachers' involvement in school decision-making?

Q4: School based- management has been operating since 1988 in New Zealand. What do you consider to be the positives of school based-management?

Q5: What do you consider to be the negatives of school based-management?

Q6: Do the positives of school-based management outweigh the negatives? Yes / Equal / No (Would you please expand on your response).

Before we conclude, is there anything further that you would like to add to any of the questions or are there any additional comments that you wish to make?

178

APPENDIX H

Survey Data

179

Table 27: vision ana uoats: Impurtainx Ii y dans

Item

xlantplacto

TIP 5 4 3 2 1 Total Mean

T (I) 117 32 8 0 0 157 4.161 74.5 20.4 5.1 0 0 100%

Working jointly with staff to T (E) 65 59 24 5 2 155 4.69

accomplish school improvement 41.9 38.1 15.5 3.2 1.3 100%

P (I) 21 4 0 0 0 25 4.84 goals

84.0 16.0 0 0 0 100%

P (E) 14 10 1 0 0 25 4.52 56.0 40.0 4.0 0 0 100%

T (I) 91 58 7 1 0 157 4.52 58.0 36.9 4.5 .6 0 100%

Fostering the development of a T (E) 59 59 32 4 1 155 4.103

shared vision for the school 38.1 38.1 20.6 2.6 .6 100% P(l) 18 7 0 0 0 25 4.72

72.0 28.0 0 0 0 100% P(E) 15 9 1 0 0 25 4.56

60.0 36.0 4.0 0 0 100% T (I) 67 71 14 2 2 156 4.28

• ' 42.9 45.5 9.0 1.3 1.3 100%

Distributing leadership opportunities T (E) 63 61 32 4 1 155 4.116

amongst staff 40.6 38.7 14.2 4.5 1.9 100% P (I) 14 11 0 0 0 25 4.56

56.0 44.0 0 0 0 100% P (E) 9 14 2 0 0 25 4.28

36.0 56.0 8.0 0 0 100%

1 awe Bo: 3Cf1001 kAIILUI C 41IU am anaps.....„

Item TIP

,n, .....“.....,..--

5

,_,

4 3 2 1 Total Mean

T (I) 100 46 11 0 0 157 4.57 63.7 29.3 7.0 0 0 100%

Projecting a positive image to the T (E) 107 34 12 2 0 155 4.587

school community 69.1 21.9 7.7 1.3 0 100% P (I) 19 5 1 0 0 25 4.64

76.0 20.0 4.0 0 0 100% P (E) 15 6 3 1 0 25 4.40

60.0 24.0 12.0 4.0 0 100% T (I) 128 27 2 0 0 157 4.80

81.5 17.2 1.3 0 0 100%

Supporting teachers by being T (E) 82 41 19 10 3 155 4.219

approachable 52.8 26.5 12.3 6.5 1.9 100% P (I) 20 4 0 0 0 24 4.833

83.4 16.6 0 0 0 100% P (E) 19 4 2 0 0 25 4.68

76.0 16.0 8.0 0 0 100% T(l) 130 24 2 0 0 156 4.82

83.3 15.4 1.3 0 0 100%

Encouraging a climate of open T (E) 62 50 30 9 4 155 4.013

communication 40.0 32.3 19.4 5.8 2.5 100%

P (I) 18 7 0 0 0 25 4.72 72.0 28.0 0 0 0 100%

P (E) 17 6 2 0 0 25 4.60 68.0 24.0 8.0 0 0 100%

180

Intellectual Stimulation: Importance (I) and Emphasis (E) - - -

Item TIP 5 4 3 2 1 Total Mean

T (I) 95 51 11 0 0 157 4.54 60.5 32.5 7 0 0 100%

Providing professional development T (E) 85 45 22 3 0 155 4.364

opportunities for teachers 54.9 29.0 14.2 1.9 0 100% P (I) 15 8 1 0 0 24 4.583

62.5 33.3 4.2 0 0 100% P (E) 15 9 1 0 0 25 4.56

60.0 36.0 4.0 0 0 100%

T (I) 79 64 10 2 0 155 4.42 51.0 41.2 6.5 1.3 0 100%

Participating actively in curriculum T (E) 65 53 25 8 4 155 4.077

development 41.9 34.2 16.1 5.2 2.6 100% P (I) 18 5 2 0 0 25 4.64

72.0 20.0 8.0 0 0 100% P (E) 11 8 5 1 0 25 4.16

44.0 32.0 20.0 4.0 0 100%

tame su: renormance r.,Xpeuiduultn. ampua 1.........

Item TIP

kn ., .........................,

5

...,

4 3 2 1 Total Mean T (I) 94 54 7 2 0 157 4.53

59.8 34.4 4.5 1.3 0 100%

Managing change effectively T (E) 48 67 31 8 1 155 3.987 31.0 43.2 20.0 5.2 .6 100%

P (I) 19 6 0 0 0 25 4.76 76.0 24.0 0 0 0 100%

P (E) 11 14 0 0 0 25 4.24 44.0 56.0 0 0 0 100%

T (I) 92 51 14 0 0 157 4.50 58.6 32.5 8.9 0 0 100%

Ensuring effective administrative T (E) 77 48 25 4 1 155 4.265

management 49.7 31.0 16.1 2.6 .6 100% P (I) 12 12 0 1 0 25 4.40

48.0 48.0 0 4.0 0 100% P (E) 10 10 5 0 0 25 4.20

40.0 40.0 20.0 0 0 100%

T (I) 81 62 12 1 1 157 4.41 51.6 39.6 7.6 .6 .6 100%

Providing recognition for T (E) 46 55 40 10 4 155 3.832

achievement 29.7 35.4 25.8 6.5 2.6 100% P (I) 12 12 1 0 0 25 4.44

48.0 48.0 4.0 0 0 100% P (E) 11 10 1 2 0 24 4.25

45.8 41.7 4.2 8.3 0 100%

til nI 1mnhdc( Fl

181

APPENDIX I

Semi-Structured Follow-Up Interview Data: Teachers

182

SEMI - STRUCTURED FOLLOW -UP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - TEACHERS

Questions

Communication Skills Ql: In the survey, two items in the rating scale related to leadership characteristics, and responses

regarding "importance to me as a teacher" were generally high to items that school leadership was "supporting teachers by being approachable" and "encouraging a climate of open communication" (with 98% for ranks of five and four). However, responses to these items were lower regarding "emphasis in the school" (with 72% and 79% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for one item concerning 'facilitates effective communication among staff', responses were lower (68%, Agree / Strongly Agree). Why do you think teachers responded this way?

Teacher (1) I find our principal very approachable, I find it good, but I suppose it depends on how you react to people, it's a reaction thing. It comes from the leadership down usually and! suppose, I think that sometimes its gender too because sometimes women are easier to talk to than men. It's probably just a perceived thing. Teacher (2) I think being approachable and communicating effectively can be two quite different things, I think that the results here quite clearly show that people. Miscommunication and poor communication can often lead to confusion. Staff will often only approach management when it's of high importance to them otherwise they just might go with the flow. Teacher (3) Staff may not have the same expectations as management does and the things that they want to put in are different from the teachers.., that might be the reason for the discrepancy maybe. Teacher (4) Perhaps some teachers are not included in the loop sort of thing perhaps social groupings or age and perhaps poor people and personal skills, perhaps just a failure to use the expertise of all staff and to take on their views. It might be that they are taking on just new ideas and not listening to the experienced teachers ideas. Failure perhaps to follow up with effective communication, perhaps people feels that their ideas are not being listened to. Perhaps some leaders are more the boss leaders and not sharing leaders. Teacher (5) The teachers obviously don't think that the people in leadership are approachable if they have responded in that way and they obviously don't feel that they have that climate of open communication in their school for whatever reason. I cant answer for the way other people answer. Teacher (6) No comment Teacher (7) I think that a lot of teachers responded in this way because they need the support of the team that they have all different concerns in that they need to be able to go and sit with management and not feel intimidated by the fact that the response they might get that the management needs to be professional as well as having some care for their staff and the emphasis. Sometimes I think that the response there is affected by past experiences have not had an open door policy where the management has not had an open door policy and been out amongst the teachers. Teachers (8)

183

Well I presume that teachers want to be supported by someone being approachable. It's obviously not happening to the extent that they want it to happen. That's why they responded that way. Teacher (9) I believe that we are supported and can be heard and that it is dealt with then and there but if it goes beyond that and its not a pressing issue that's where I feel that the emphasis is lost and I would put that down purely to the size of the school. Teacher (10) For the staff what was important to them was supporting the teachers by being approachable and encouraging a climate of open communication, 98% and the schools emphasis was a little lower because, Imp not really sure. I'm quite surprised at that but think that maybe we all communicate in different ways and its pretty hard to get the message across to everybody in the same way. Maybe the message is there and you are not prepared to listen and maybe principals and DPs have got so much paper work to do that they are assuming that they have got the message across and perhaps its not clear enough. Teacher (11) Its very important within a school especially being able to approach a principal is a key thing in being to be able to openly communicate, so the response herewith the emphasis being lower, so obviously teachers were wanting this but its not. I would believe that being approachable is high for teachers and communication but in saying that I think that there is always room for improvement, there is always a chance that there could be more communication and more approachable. There are situations that arise in the school that make some people harder to approach and you might relate to other people better, so I think that there is always that little bit of room for improvement. Teacher (12) My perception of that would be that as a teachers you need to know that you have the support of your principal If you are having issues, however I think that sometimes as professional when you have got a contentious issue that you want to bring up with your principal as professional we are not confident enough to go and sort it out even though the lines of communication may be open. Teacher (13) I think the ideal is the way that teachers see open communication and support system as being cooperative...that is the ideal but there are things pulling peoples energies that those things get lost along the way. Teacher (14) Maybe time, not enough time to have the communication in school hours. I don't know, maybe if syndicates are not so close if I don't feel that way at all, because I do have time to do it. I'm not too sure really. Teacher (15) Yes it's important to feel supported and that you can approach the leadership to sort a problem out. Often you can be left on your own to struggle through the situation which is not a good thing. Young teachers need to be supported and often its not that they don't want to help you but that they are so busy with the other things in the school.

Recognition of Teaching Q2: In the survey, two items in the rating-scale question related to recognition of teaching

Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as teacher" for "providing recognition for achievement" and "managing change effectively" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four) but responses regarding "emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (65.2% and 74.2% for ranks of five and four). The Likert-scale questions "is aware of my unique needs / expertise" and "provides recognition of teachers work" had a lower score (67% and 72% Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you explain this result?

Teacher (1) That's really important. We like to be told that we are wanted and needed and good. Yes it is often forgotten in the rush to do things. Its there and occasionally they put it in but they forget that people need that little pat on the back. That's what we want and its not because they don't want to do it, they forget. Teacher (2)

184

I agree that its incredibly important to provide recognition for achievement and its important to manage change effectively however in any working situation where you've got different viewpoints that management of change is viewed differently. We want other people to see what we have done and to express their approval accordingly. Teacher (3) I see that teachers see that recognition and achievement is a really needy thing but im wondering again if management has a different sense of that and hasn't got again the emphasis on that point and maybe they prefer to focus on Unique needs and expertise, we are not very good in society in recognising when somebody is doing well and timetabling in schools doent allow you to shift to meet people needs. Teacher (4) I think that all teachers need to have equal feedback from teachers and all teachers need personal feedback and that's not just paper feedback or computer feedback its that personal interaction between the leader and the teacher so that they feel values and they feel that their work is recognised, Sometimes the recognition of achievement is not to the person who is responsible. You need to recognise all teachers not just the leaders. Teacher (5) Well obviously some teachers don't feel supported do they... in their schools they obviously don't feel supported enough and also their achievements are not recognised enough. I can't say any more. Teachers (6) No comment Teacher (7) Teachers all feel that they work extremely hard, they work long hours and they take on all sorts of new initiatives and they work through them without a lot of help and guidance at times and they deal with the extra stuff and go into the classroom and try and teach good strong lessons and at the day at the end of the week it goes without being noticed without a lot of recognition. There is also professional development and that is taken on board as part of being a teacher and you are going the extra mile for yourself for the school and it needs to be recognised. If its not recognised in the school then its not going to be recognised outside of the school either. Teacher (8) The same answers as question one. Teacher (9) The recognition for achievement is given according to strengths in this school but when it comes down to individuals I believe that you get lost in the crowd because we have got so big, and its horrible to say but the person with the best selling ability gets heard whereas the quiet teacher can often be better is lost. Teacher (10) Once again I'm not sure why its different and once again maybe it's a work load thing, perhaps senior staff because of the workload just assume people have been recognised, when really it's the little things hat they appreciate being recognised for. Sometimes if you are doing a good job it's never said, you are only told if you are doing something wrong. Teacher (11) Change within the school is a big factor for teachers and being able to obviously provide clean changeovers and managing change effectively is important because if you are unable to do this. I guess its important for teachers because a lot of planning goes into the day, so if there is change within the school structure.. within school syndicates you want it to be as smooth as possible and perhaps in this case I believe you would want a principal who if he says that he is going to do something that he is going to follow it through. Providing recognition for achievement I guess management want to back up what is happening but I guess that there is always room for improvement. Teacher (12) I think the difference would be because the school is always looking to improve that perhaps we don't spend so much time recognising those achievements because we are always searching for those things that we are not doing so well in our programmes so that we can make improvements.. as long as there is a balance between one and the other so that you are able to say "yes" you are having success and theses are the reasons why, but this could still occur and be improved. Teacher (13) Yes again, I think that there is just such a pull on teachers time and energy at the moment that while its ideal for change to be taken into consideration and not get too bogged down with it as we tend to, its probably not managed as well as could be. Teacher (14)

185

Maybe the leadership or the leaders are not aware of what you are achieving. I suppose that it goes down to staff vibes as well. Once again time to do that, leaders are very busy in the school, I think a good leader would recognise your achievements, but maybe they are not aware whats going on. Teacher (15) Teachers want to be supported and they want to have some recognition for the work that they do but schools are busy places and often it is overlooked and imp not sure that its done for any other reason than there is just so much for leaders to do in the school and there are many demands on time. Often it is just overlooked.

Instructional leadership Q3: In the survey, one item in the rating-scale question related to instructional leadership. Most

teachers responses were high for "importance to me as a teacher" for "participating actively in curriculum development" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four), but responses regarding"emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (76.1% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for two items concerning "is a source of new ideas for my professional learning" and excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together", responses were lower (65.9% and 57.7%, Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you interpret this result?

Teacher (1) I can see the importance of participating actively in curriculum development because that's the only way we learn. We learn by doing. The emphasis is lower because it probably depends on who is taking the curriculum development because some people are good at it and some people are not. Some people just talk at you and have difficulty doing the hands on bit. I suppose it depends on whether you like the curriculum that you are doing and whether it excites your vision. Teacher (2) This is a really interesting one and a result of over programming professional development. We have had too much PD in the last little while and the emphasis has come through that management thinks that it is important... there been a lot of talk amongst staff about that, having said that we are always eager to learn as teachers but often when opportunities arise we want to take them and we end up overloading ourselves as well. Teacher (3) To me as a teacher the leadership of doing curriculum development is really important and I'm wondering if when you are talking about the leadership in the school. As a teacher you are a separate entity and you can see what you think is important and in a school if you are in a leadership role possibly you've got other issues on your time and maybe you don't see it being back in the classroom doing curriculum development and possibly that is why the emphasis for leadership in the school is lower. Teacher (4) I feel that everyone wants to participate actively in Curriculum development, perhaps it's the new ideas and the vision is not presented in a way that enthuses the people to develop further and perhaps sometimes too many new things are presented so that you have overload....its about striking a happy medium so that you have time to reflect, perhaps better to do less and do it well. Teacher (5) They obviously feel that they are not getting enough PD opportunities in their school or that the PD that they are getting is not motivating enough and is not meeting their needs. They obviously see curriculum development as important but that its not happening and that they are not moving on with their development in the way that they would like to be. Teachers (6) Curriculum development is really important and teachers always need to be doing that but there is so much of it and we need to be able to mange it better. We have got too much happening and it would be better if we had less and were able to make a better job of it Teacher (7) This could because management teams are actively involved in the curriculum development and you all go together as a team and then its left up to the teacher to implement the new development and trial it to see if its

186

going to work and the management team are there for you to go and seek advice form but they are not actually there in the teaching of the new development. Teacher (8) The same answers, it not happening. Lack of communication. Teacher (9) lye been in education long enough to see the many cycles of change where you are keep updated and I believe that we are about to come to the next wave..., we have kept up with every curriculum. Its really important to be involved in that but it comes down to you as the individual teacher and my question is, is it really the area that I need to develop in even if! have to do it because it's a school focus but is it really benefiting me or the children I teach? Teacher (10) I think that maybe the teachers felt the emphasis in the school was maybe lower because don't really know, can I say that, don't really know. Teacher (11) In this question in past experience there has been a notice handed around saying that a meeting is happening. I think that if it was promoted more then I think that information is there and its handed out but its sort of just passed by you and Umm you don't get the opportunity to follow it up... the principal needs to sit down more and go through it. Teacher (12) I believe that our school takes on a really positive whole school approach to curriculum development which the principal and the senior staff and the wider school staff are involved in whole school development. Teacher (13) Yes the leadership is considered as important by teachers that curriculum development is emphasised but in actual act the leaders in the school are probably so involved in the day to day management and day to day running that the curriculum stuff gets rated to a lower status. Teacher (14) I think that the leadership need to be actively involved in the curriculum development really I don't know why they are not. Again its because they have too much responsibility. They need more time to do it. Teacher (15) School development and the curriculum is really important and we spend a lot of time here, often we don't have the time or there to too greater an expectation and we get overloaded with things happening. I think if we could do less we could do a better job and we would all benefit from it.

School Goals and Vision Q4: A comparison of the rank order of items for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that over

one third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following two items: "fostering the development of a shared vision for the school" "working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvements goals". How would you interpret this result?

Teacher (1) These have come out lower in emphasis because you have got the old school and the new school. There are not many of the old school left a few of us. We take those things for granted and we think that they are there already, we know that they are of importance but we forget that other people need to be involved. Teachers (2) We have a very clear visionary statement and I think that staff knows it's very very clear however, not everybody agrees and that has made it a challenge to make it happen. Its not realistic to think that everybody has the same vision but we have to find some way of making it work and allowing individuality still being a part of how the school works. Its an ongoing challenge I think. Teacher (3) Teachers and management are out of touch slightly and we are not communicating clearly enough what we think is important and the teachers are not giving that message across or are not able to get that message

187

across as to what they would like to see happen and management has not picked up that we have got discrepancies between the two factions. Teacher (4) Some of the things have been covered already.. .its that shared vision thing and being aware of it and given the right climate and resources to be able to accomplish it. Teacher (5) Well the teachers felt that they were not involved in the process. Teachers felt that they were not part of establishing the joint vision for the school, that would be the obvious reason. Teachers (6) Oh, that's that concept that people have in their own mind that what they think is important but, sometimes the reality of how schools are run can be quite different, unfortunately. Teachers (7) Sorry I'm unsure. Teacher (8) Same Teacher (9) Because I'm a teachers and I have knowledge to share and fostering the development of a shared vision we communicate it we strive for it but I often think that it gets lost so therefore the vision for the school you only really talk about it at a meeting. When we are working jointly with staff well we try, but some days I don't see any body even though we have over 50 staff we are just too big. Teacher (10) Maybe we just assume that we have all got the same goals and vision and we don't spend time actually talking about what are goals and vision are, so we have all got slightly different ideas which would mean that the overall school thing would be a little different, that's it. Teacher (11) In a school you are working as one big team and what you want is where there are visions and goals set up for the year that you work as a team to achieve these. I guess as a teachers these are very important but in saying that I wonder if sometimes that, not being critical that with some of them being out of the teaching side of things that some of the goals that teachers see as being important are not necessarily as important for them. Teacher (12) I think that school goals and visions are good as a whole school / wider school community for everyone to be on the same track with PD I believe that it important that staff should have the opportunity to also go down the track of what believe is important to develop in to those particular areas as well and to develop those as a focus point of interest, not just from the whole perspective of the school. Teacher (13) Yes it would be nice to develop that shared vision and have unique characteristics and have lots of change all of the time which is going to meet the needs of the kids, but the day to day running of the school takes 100% of the energy. Teacher (14) I think that teachers should have more say in the shared vision of the school because we know the children and we know what they want and urn maybe things like the board have got more time to look where the schools going. I dont think that we are really asked a lot to know where we are going. Teacher (15) We talk at lot about what our vision is and we have input in to it at meetings and that but sometimes its difficult to achieve all those things as it seen as being important but the resourcing is not there to achieve all the things that really need to be done.

Administrative Management Q5: A comparison of the rank order for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that nearly one

third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following item."ensuring effective administrative management" How would you interpret this result? •

188

Teacher (1) Yes well I suppose that we are not really interested in administration management, as long as everything is going effectively we are quite happy but we see that a lot of time is taken on these things. For the people in leadership its really important because if they didn't do it would run, but for us it not important. The emphasis should be on the children. Teacher (2) I think that admin management has quite an effect on schools if its not done well and I think the fact that teachers give it a lower emphasis means that it is probably is being done well and because its not impacting on them. Teacher (3) I think that ensuring effective admin management that they are not really worried about that. They want a better curriculum development in the school and the emphasis is right down on the ground floor with the children and I don't think that they see board, admin, ministry or paperwork as vital to getting that across to the students so I feel that we see the principals or management as putting more emphasis on it because they are busy with paper work rather than checking out what the kids are doing and how we can improve delivery to those children. Teacher (4) The teachers are saying what happens in the classroom is more important to them than perhaps what the admin is. Probably from where the teachers are coming from the teachers objective in their teaching is to accomplish child ongoing learning. Teacher (5) They rated it highly but felt that it was not being done as well as they would like to see it done. Perhaps it could be at a Ministry level because it's underfunded. Teachers have a busy workload and often there is not enough time to do the administration. Teachers (6) A system may be effective on paper but in practice there are too many things happening around it to make it not effective or the time is not there for people to be able to effectively do what is required or there is not enough or there is not enough people to share the load or whatever. Administration systems in particular systems can appear to be good but in actual fact they are not always, sadly. Teacher (7) Important so that everyone on the staff knows whats going on but then there are the times where there is a breakdown in communication between management and teachers and maybe administrative decisions that are being made which affect the whole staff and the decisions are made by management and teachers are not included and they feel that they should be. Teacher (8) No comment Teacher (9) It come back to size, I try to do my best in the day but me as a teacher! try to deal with the kids. The emphasis is not rated highly because I believe that there is an effective administration system in place already so I trust that that system is going to work so I would rank it lower and that's why I think that the results have shown that. Teacher (10) Once again I'm not really sure why there would be too much of a difference. I don't know. Teacher (11) In this school it's pretty effective to be honest. Looking back at prior teaching I think that what has to happen is that the principal has in constant overseeing of the administration management. I guess that a smooth office is something that all teachers want to see working and you hand something in and it gets done. I guess that its all time management and having enough administrative staff to cover. Teacher (12) Administrative management is really, really important and I think that communication between the staff and the principal is really really important, um I think that your understanding of admin management when you are just a beginning teacher, tour knowledge is really lacking in those areas until you grasp an understanding of the way it actually operates and I think that admin management is really really important and I would say that from my perspective from our school that the admin management is really, really sharp.

189

Teacher (13) I can only assume that the people that weighted it that way. There are a lot of schools where the administration management is not effective in running the school. Teacher (14) Maybe that's more of a funding type thing where there is not any money. Maybe to employ people to do more of that work therefor the teachers are probably doing more than what they should. Teacher (15) We are in teaching for the kids and the administration management is there to support us in our role. Its important to remember that because often there is not enough time for us to do the work we need to do with the kids because of the paper work we now have to do.

Q6: Over 83% of teachers responded "no" to the question "do you aspire to become a school Principal ?". Of the people who answered "no" to this question nearly two thirds gave as a reason "I believe that! could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan." How would you explain this result?

Teacher (1) I can answer that one. Because principals have so much work to do. We see poor Sharon slaving away and there are far more people coming and complaining than there ever used to be. You get the complaints and it's so nice for the teachers to say. Go and talk to someone in charge. I could do the job as well as them but I don't want to do it! Teachers (2) I wouldn't be preparing to become a principal despite other people encouragement for me to do so. A couple of reasons for that. Already my job takes a large part of my life up so it's a very personal reason of wanting to have real balance in my professional and personal life and that would be harder to do as a principal. Also I kind of feel like our society doesn't support being a principal very well in terms of working for children an advocate for children which I think is becoming a big part of a principals job, the social and emotional needs of children are changing all the time and its impacting on learning more and more in time and, because it's a brick wall that you come up against when you try and help these kids I just think that I have the temperament to try and cope with that and I find it really, really challenging. Teacher (3) Becoming a principal is not in a lot of peoples plan because of that paper work thing and 1 think that possibly reflects on Q5 as they don't want to be seen as being in the office in administration when their interest is out there with programmes, units, works and exciting innovative ideas for teaching and they enjoy that and I feel that the job of principal is not a glorious job to most peoples eyes, I don't think that they get enough for what they do. Teacher (4) Probably people just don't want to take the responsibility nowadays, perhaps they don't have the right people skills and that there is a lack of opportunities to develop those leadership skills. People who often take on the principalship some of them have had the opportunity to learn the leadership skills in other positions. Perhaps the perception of being a principal doesn't fit with people philosophy. You know that you could do it but it's the paper side of it but you prefer the hands on side of it. Teacher (5) I think a lot of teachers are women and they have family responsibilities and a lot of them don't have the time and commitment to follow the career path that's involved in becoming a principal and men are a minority in teaching and can follow that career path through because to follow the career path through to principal would involve an awful lot of your personal time. Also people who are keen on teaching being a principal in this day and age takes you right out of the classroom. Teacher (6) Well he just left a principalship so I know why teachers don't aspire to be principals. I think that teachers do recognise that it is a big job and that it can be an incredibly stressful and challenging job. Teachers can reach the top of the scale and be paid reasonable money and say that for an extra few dollars I don't really want to be a principal, I don't actually want to have that extra stress in my life, I don't actually aspire to work from 7 in the morning to 7 at night trying to get things done, I don't want to have to go to board meetings. Teacher (7)

190

A lot of teachers believe that the responsibilities involved in becoming a principal is not reflected in the rewards they receive and although they have a high level of qualifications and are very able teachers they would be able to do the job but they don't want the responsibility as they see it taking over there lives. It's a time issue, they see the amount of time their principals put in and its frightening and basically they are not paid enough for the role. Teacher (8) No comment Teacher (9) What I didn't count on was marriage and my personal situation changed and children arrived on the scene and I still had the idea of management but you don't have the opportunity to get on to the middle management rung because older people have been there for years. If you are young and single and can move all over NZ then you have the opportunity but you do not get paid for all the hassles and all of the other rubbish that you have to put up with. Teacher (10) People might make a choice to be a teacher as a lifestyle choice and therefore have other interests that they put a lot of time into so they think that... they choose not to be a principal but they know that if they were a principal that they could do the job without the other interests. They might think that they are capable of doing the principals job because we all have a thought of what it actually is, but when you get there to actually do it. Maybe they just haven't got the ambition to be a principal. Teacher (11) That's an interesting question and I quite enjoyed that one. I guess what that means is that a lot of teachers want to aspire to do the best at their job and if a principal job came up, sure they might take it. Others perhaps might be looking at going overseas but yeah me being such a young fellow it will be a few more years before I have he experience to be a principal. It's a lot more commitment I guess and a lot more pressure for one person in running a school. Teacher (12) These days being in the role as a administrator in the school and being in the principal role that there is so much paperwork being involved in that I believe that you end up being distanced away from teaching children and that your role is actually detached and that's the reason why I went into education because as a young teacher your there to be there for the kids and for the interest and the benefit of the kids where as in the principal role your more after being a manager of a school rather than having direct contact with children and I think that balance is lost. Teacher (13) From a personal point of view and having been in a GI position I know that my most enjoyable teaching has been at scale A and I'm personally not interested in the pressures and stresses involved and spreading my self so thinly including management. I can only assume that other people feel the same way. Teacher (14) I think that one of the main reasons is the responsibility thing, nowadays dealing with a lot more social type problems as well.. Just the extra responsibility thing. Teacher (15) Principals don't get paid enough for what they do and they are always hassled by everyone. I enjoy the kids and my job is busy enough and I don't want the extra responsibility of all the meetings and the paper work. Teachers see principals doing the work and the pressure that they are under and decide that it not for them because there is no balance or personal life in the job.

191

APPENDIX J

Semi-Structured Follow-Up Interview Data: Senior Teachers

192

SEMI- STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - SENIOR TEACHERS

Questions

Ql: From your experience as a senior teacher, what do you think teachers want from their school leadership?

Teacher (1) Teachers want a facilitator in terms of problem solving, I think they want direction in terms of curriculum and in terms of dealing with children, the needs of children, behaviour and learning, dealing with parents. They want somebody who is going to back them in the difficult time and its important that they feel that you will back them with a parent and that if there are any discrepancies that it is discussed at a different time. Nobody wants to be left to 'hung out to dry'. They need to feel secure that the leadership in the school will back them in any difficult situations. I think that they want guidance in new initiatives that come from the government or the management of the school. Teacher (2) They want some strong person with good communication at the head of the team. They want guidance and direction from those people at the top, they should be able to communicate clearly their ideas and where they want their vision for the school. They also want somebody who has got good sound knowledge of pedagogy in teaching Our principal gets in their and gives us feedback and feed forward, yes and just to have a vision too. A shared vision. Teacher (3) I think that they want to be supported and given direction as well. The whole point of having a senior teacher is to have someone who can perhaps guide and lead so that I think that teachers in a syndicate are perhaps looking for some one who can help make decisions. I think they also like to have somebody above them who is perhaps more experience and who has quite a lot of depth in curriculum. Teacher (4) They just want people who are well organised and a school that has clear goals and intentions and people who can help them in their role and people who are reasonably practical who have a good communication with parents and children. Teacher (5) They want direction, they want support and they want experience to improve the quality of their own teaching. Teacher (6) They are wanting reassurance, reassurance that they are on the right track. They are wanting guidance through ensuring that they are following pathways, and that all their planning is right. A bit of innovation, to be given the freedom to use ideas and to use new ideas that have been fed to them as well. Teacher (7) I think probably support, someone to talk to, someone to run through ideas and in some situations the professional development side of it but we probably all share that in our syndicates. Think mainly confirmation that what the teacher is doing is right. Teacher (8) I think that they want guidance and support, guidance In the area of planning particularly with curriculum and they want guidance on how to use school systems and processes that are in place, they want support in terms of their class programme, how to handle difficult kids and how to get through their day.

Teacher (9) Firstly they want leadership not a vacuum or a wishy washy on again off again type of leadership. They want clear lines of leadership. They want leadership that is professional, collegial, where all are treated with respect and equality, where the opinions of the younger teachers are listened to and considered. An atmosphere of openness where it is okay to express comment. Teachers want to know that they will be supported by the leadership during difficult times with parents, children and BOT. Loyalty expected in the leadership and offered in return.

193

Teacher (10) They want to be given some direction and guidance but also be able to have freedom within set parameters to experiment with teaching styles. They want to know that they are supported by the leadership in difficult times with parents and students and the leadership of the school will be there to support them in these times.

Q2: How do you perceive school leadership affecting the role of the classroom teacher?

Teacher (1) I think that the leadership can play a huge role in the life of the classroom teacher, it can be the difference between the classroom teacher having to battle away on their own or getting the support that they need to constantly improve what they are doing and being able to deal with the tough times. We all know that teaching is stressful and having a team around you that are supportive, even if the stress is coming from a personal situation is really important. Teacher (2) I think its like huge! The leadership has to be strong.... If they are not there the effectiveness of your classroom is not going to be to the same high standard, strong leaders make strong school. Leading by example and being valuable role models is perhaps the most important thing. Helping to make the classroom teacher more effective by removing some of the paperwork and I think as leaders we have to try and make the role manageable for classroom teachers. Teacher (3) I think that the leadership can affect the role of the classroom teacher by however prescriptive the school system and the leadership that has put those system into place, that's probably the thing that has the impact into the role of the classroom teacher in terms of how far may or may not go in delivery or when they want to do things. Teacher (4) I think that the leaders have to provide a frameworks to make their jobs easier so that there is not an overburden on planning and assessment, structures have to be in place in the school so that everything that you are doing is worthwhile and that you are doing it for a reason. Teacher (5) School leadership affects the role of the teachers because of your organisation structures and the way that those structures affects what you need to be teaching in your classroom to give you guidance on what you need to be covering and what the school and parents values as being important in a collective picture. Teacher (6) If they are comfortable with what they are doing and if they know that they are on the right track they will be happy within their role as a teacher, they will be comfortable with what they are teaching, they will know that they are filling requirements. Teacher (7) Again I think it a team situation where you are there for support and you are developing a whole group working towards some kind of goal and with the togetherness you will try new things just like the children do. Teacher (8) If a classroom teacher is well supported they will be confident in their approach to teaching and they will feel that they are coping and that they are managing to do what they are setting out to do as a teacher. If they are not supported by school leadership they will feel as if they are out on a limb and that they are tackling the world on there own. Teacher (9) School leadership needs that there is a two way communication, respect, appreciation with and of classroom teachers, they want leadership to be interested in their classroom programmes but a constant overbearing presence, a license to experiment and implement different styles of learning within the accepted guidelines of the school policy and within a clear framework. Also a recognition of and understanding of strengths and weaknesses. Teacher (10) Its important that the leadership of the school understands that their role is very important in supporting the classroom teacher and that the leadership of the school is central in creating and maintaining a supportive climate that the teachers work in. If the teachers feel happy in their school environment and supported by the leadership it shows in what they are doing and how they do it.

194

Q3: From your experience how would you describe teachers' involvement in school decision-making?

Teacher (1) I think that teachers involvement in SDM is a really tricky thing. I think that its important for teachers feel involved however there also needs to be a point from the leaders point of view where a conclusion has to drawn and a decision has to be made. Where there are two sides battling away ultimately that's the role of the leadership in the school to make a decision that they think is best. Teacher (2) From school to school it is different. As lye moved, the last 3 schools that lye worked in teachers have had a huge involvement in DM. I think its important that teachers have their say, and quite often as a leader you have an idea where you are going to take things but you have to get the grass roots support and get their input and take it from there. Id say as a teacher that teachers involvement in DM has been huge in the last 3 schools that lye worked in. Teacher (3) Teachers in this school are very involved in DM. Big picture and other things are bought to staff arena and there is a high degree of collaboration and decision-making. Teacher (4) They have an opportunity at our school to be involved in DM but because we are so large its difficult to have a contrasting view that may not be the one others share. Sometimes teachers feel that their view has not been heard. Some people might perceive it this way. Teacher (5) Very very important that the whole school is involved in collective decision-making that everyone's view is accounted for and decisions are made from that point. Teacher (6) A lot of it varies according to the decision that has to be made. I realise that there are places where in our situation the principals decision is final but of course there is generally negotiation. Teacher (7) We all have the opportunity. People are actually asked to contribute and then once the decision is made there is that pulling together and supporting our decision. Teacher (8) Generally speaking teachers are involved in a lot of DM, sometimes its advantageous because they feel that they are being consulted and asked and that they have a say in various things in the school, at other times its difficult because if there are a large number of teachers involved its hard to reach a conclusion and you can spend a lot of time discussing it and at the end you don't know what has been decided. Teacher (9) Teacher involvement is most effective in a bottom up model. Staff meetings are the least effective and most effective are the ideas coming from syndicate or team meetings.. .these are then taken back for forum discussion and fine-tuning. Acknowledgment must be given for input and ideas proffered must be credited to the source. Where delegation or responsibility for a task is given then the teacher should be allowed to action it in his or her own style. Teachers like to be consulted, informed, given responsibilities and involved in decision-making. Teacher (10) Teachers now have a lot of involvement in SDM and the opportunity is there for them to provide their input. They now have far more involvement than what used to be the case but there is far more administration in the process of this with extra meetings and consultation.

Q4: School based- management has been operating since 1988 in New Zealand. What do you consider to be the positives of school based-management?

Teacher (1) I think that the positive as a whole is that the community knows a lot more about what goes on in schools. Id like to say that it's made them more positive about what goes on in schools but I don't know that it has. I also think that it allows diversity in the community to be better handled. Those barriers of ignorance have broken down.

195

Teacher (2) The community is more involved. lye been on a BOT and I can see the difference in the Governance and management roles. You can use your funding to develop priority areas. As a parent I think that the opportunity to have a role in their children's education is great. As a parent it's huge and also you can target areas of need. Teacher (3) That people can have more ownership over the things that they have been requested to do. You can have control over what you are doing and why you are doing it. Teacher (4) Being able to control and write your own programme and being able to deliver the curriculum based on the needs of your own community and children's needs and being able to utilise your own money to but the things that you need as a school. Teacher (5) That SBM is completely reflective of the communities needs and wants so that the children are actually being taught to the needs of families and the communities around them. Teacher (6) Ownership of programmes. Ownership in general. Teacher (7) The togetherness and that everybody is working towards the same goals. We are all involved in the decision so we are all going to go the same way. Teacher (8) The positives are that teachers have more support under SBM than under the old system, teachers certainly feel that they are involved in school life at a more personal level perhaps. Teacher (9) The opportunity to respond to local needs both in curriculum content and in management style and the increased parental and local community involvement. Also the increased freedom to create a point of difference in your school and to be innovative. Teacher (10) That the community is involved in the life of the school and that parents have the opportunity to play an active role in school affairs through being on the school boards and through having an input into the decisions which affect their children.

Q5: What do you consider to be the negatives of school based -management?

Teacher (1) The negatives of SBM, I think that it has bought a greater level of inequality to school, I think that it has helped wealthy schools in wealthy areas get more wealthy it can a huge difference if you have somebody on you board of trustees that can make wise investments for your school in comparison to a BOT that does not have those skills. Having parents on a board can lead top personal clashes which may not have happened previously and judgements can become clouded. The management of resouces and the allocation of resources can also become challenging. Teacher (2) I think that the funding that we get from the Ministry does not take us where we want to go, we are a very high performing school and we are always reviewing things and identifying where we want to go and often we cant go there because of the resources available to us. Teacher (3) You are asking lay people to come in and interpret the education act and all the policies and decisions that are connected with that and I think that is a big ask of parents who are generally tend to be involved with their own family and businesses and jobs, they tend to be the same people and that's a huge ask. The fact that nothing is standardised and every body has to make up their own thing. It's ok if you are in a high decile school where your parents are capable but if you are not then you are struggling. Teacher (4)

There is lot of reinventing the wheel in terms of policies and procedures in terms of school charters and things like that. Right down to units plans. There between 30,000 to 40,000 teachers in NZ and every week we are writing that should be shared a lot more and schools have to have individualised policies where there could be a set of policies

196

out where maybe all you have to do is alter 3 or 4 points. Schools are doing a lot of things that central Govt did yet there is no more time or money to do it. Teacher (5) I guess the same perception that lots of people would have throughout NZ that perhaps the expertise and knowledge that is actually needed to run an effective school may not be given by the community members. Teacher (6) I Think that a lot of it has been rectified, I think that a lot of it was too open ended, curriculum delivery probably. There were too many alternatives and then we were squashed in and we were given leeway and that leeway was taken away... there was a lot of variation, we did not know what was expected, now curriculum documents have been defined, in some ways we were wanting more guidance in curriculum areas. Teacher (7) I don't think that there are too many but there are some times when I think lets just make a decision now and get on with it. Teacher (8) Sometimes things can get personal rather than dealing with the issues and also some times issues are talked around and around for a long period of time before a decision can be made but I guess that depends on the style of leadership especially if a principal goes in and says that we want a decision on this today. Teacher (9) Probably the opposite of Q4. Too much community / parental involvement and the competition between schools in local areas. Teacher (10) The biggest negative that I can think of with respect to this question is that while the freedom is there to make decisions and to have input, the money is not there for the resourcing of the school.

Q6: Do the positives of school-based management outweigh the negatives? Yes / Equal / No (Would you please expand on your response).

Teacher (1) Id have to say no, not a strong no but it would fall on the no side for the reasons mentioned and all the small things that schools now have to take responsibility for like maintenance of buildings. Teacher (2) Yes mainly because you are putting more control in the hands of the comminity and that has to be a positive for us. You know your parents and your community. The only negative that I can see is the resourcing from the top. Teacher (3) No I don't think they do, I think that there is too much weighting towards the negative aspects for principals and BOT. A lot of things could be standardised. They could easily do that if they chose to, this concept of everybody having ownership of things, I don't really agree with it in all respects. Teacher (4) I think yes because of flexibility and because you can meet the needs of your community and because you are not so rigidly structured. It depends on how good your board is ,how good your staff are, how big your school is. In our situation it's a yes, but if you were teaching in a low decile area it would be different. Teacher (5) That's tricky. I would say that its equal but I would say that perhaps my perception of that is distorted because I have never been in an environment where the negatives would outweigh the positives, I guess you have to base it on your personal experience. Teacher (6) Yes definitely, because of ownership you can work through those negatives. There is too much responsibity on BOT. They are not interested in curriculum issues but we are. They are not equipped to deal with that responsibility and that's a negative but it can be worked through. But yes the positives do outweigh the negatives. Teacher (7) Definitely Yes, going in the one direction as I said before and supporting each other. Teacher (8) Im not sure, Id have to say equal, because I could not say definitely yes or definitely no as Im uncertain on that one.

197

Teacher (9) - Positives outweigh the negatives yes but the leadership and management style is much more difficult to get right. Its now very transparent and leadership is operating right in the face of its consumers / clients as there is no anonymous Education Board in between. Teacher (10) Definitely a yes. The community has the opportunity to be involved in their childrens education and the opportunity to make local decisions and to implement things the way that they would like to and to respond to local needs.

198